document.write( "Question 978498: I need help with proofs. Thank you!
\n" );
document.write( "D →(B→C), B & −C ├ −D \n" );
document.write( "
Algebra.Com's Answer #599878 by jim_thompson5910(35256)![]() ![]() ![]() You can put this solution on YOUR website! You can do a proof by contradiction.\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Step 1) Assume the opposite of the conclusion. Assume ~~D which is equivalent to D\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Step 2) Since we have D, we can use D -> (B -> C) and modus ponens to get B -> C\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Step 3) Use simplification to go from B & ~C to just B. You can also free up ~C as well\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Step 4) Use B and B -> C to get C (modus ponens again)\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Step 5) The ~C and C contradict one another. So the original assumption is not possible. Therefore, the opposite of the assumption (D) is the only possibility.\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "So that's one way we can prove that ~D is the conclusion. \n" ); document.write( " |