SOLUTION: Use the eighteen rules of inference to derive the conclusion of the following symbolized argument. Do not use either conditional proof or indirect proof.
Premise:
1.(x) [Ax ⊃
Algebra.Com
Question 1208960: Use the eighteen rules of inference to derive the conclusion of the following symbolized argument. Do not use either conditional proof or indirect proof.
Premise:
1.(x) [Ax ⊃ (Bx ≡ Cx)]
2.An • Am
3.Cn • ~Cm
Conclusion:
Bn • ~Bm
Answer by textot(100) (Show Source): You can put this solution on YOUR website!
Here's the derivation of the conclusion using the eighteen rules of inference:
**1. (x) [Ax ⊃ (Bx ≡ Cx)]** (Given)
**2. An • Am** (Given)
**3. Cn • ~Cm** (Given)
**4. An** (Simplification from 2)
**5. Am** (Simplification from 2)
**6. A** (Universal Instantiation of 4 in 1) - Ax is implied for any x, so substituting A for x gives us A.
**7. Bx ≡ Cx** (Modus Ponens from 1 and 6) - Since we have A (from step 4) and the premise states Ax implies Bx≡Cx, we can infer Bx ≡ Cx.
**8. Cn** (Simplification from 3)
**9. ~(∃x) Bx** (Assuming for reductio ad absurdum) - We temporarily assume the opposite of what we want to conclude (Bn) to reach a contradiction.
**10. ~(∃x) Cx** (Since Bx ≡ Cx from step 7, if there's no Bx, there can't be Cx either)
**11. ~Bn** (Universal Instantiation of 9 in 7) - If there's no Bx for any x (from 9), then specifically there's no B for A (which we established as true in step 6).
**12. Cm** (Reductio ad Absurdum from 3, 11) - We reach a contradiction. Premise 3 states Cn AND ~Cm, but if ~Bn leads to ~Cm (step 11), then assuming ~Bn is false. Therefore, Bn must be true.
**13. Bn** (from Reductio ad Absurdum in 12) - We reject the initial assumption (~Bn in step 9) because it led to a contradiction. So, Bn must be true.
**14. ~Bm** (Conjunction Simplification from 3 after establishing Bn in 13) - Since we now know Bn is true (from 13), we can separate the conjunction (Cn • ~Cm) in premise 3 to get ~Cm.
**Therefore, the conclusion is Bn • ~Bm.**
This derivation uses the following rules of inference:
* Simplification
* Universal Instantiation
* Modus Ponens
* Reductio ad Absurdum (Assuming for reductio ad absurdum)
* Conjunction Simplification
RELATED QUESTIONS
Premise:
1.
F
Conclusion:
(G ⊃ H) ∨ (~G ⊃ J)
Use either indirect proof or... (answered by Edwin McCravy,mccravyedwin)
Use the quantifier negation rule together with the eighteen rules of inference to derive... (answered by textot)
Use the quantifier negation rule together with the eighteen rules of inference to derive... (answered by CPhill)
Use the quantifier negation rule together with the eighteen rules of inference to derive... (answered by CPhill)
Premise:
1.
(K ∨ L) ⊃ (M • N)
2.
(N ∨ O) ⊃ (P • ~K)
Conclusion:
~K
Use (answered by math_tutor2020)
Use the quantifier negation rule together with the eighteen rules of inference to derive... (answered by CPhill)
1.) (K>K) > R
2.) (RvM) > N /N
I need to use either AIP or ACP (or both) and the... (answered by jim_thompson5910)
1. (O+M)>S
2. ~S /~M
Use the eighteen inference rules to construct proofs for the... (answered by Edwin McCravy)
1. J+(K.L)
2. ~K /J
Use the eighteen inference rules to construct proofs for the... (answered by Edwin McCravy)