document.write( "Question 1193814: Prove using Indirect Proof\r
\n" );
document.write( "\n" );
document.write( "1. B ⊃ (K • M)
\n" );
document.write( "2. (B • M) ⊃ (P ≡ ∼P) / ∼B \n" );
document.write( "
Algebra.Com's Answer #825875 by math_tutor2020(3816)![]() ![]() ![]() You can put this solution on YOUR website! \n" ); document.write( "This is one way to do the derivation using an indirect proof (aka proof by contradiction). \n" ); document.write( "
\n" ); document.write( "The conclusion we want to arrive at is ~B \n" ); document.write( "Assume that the opposite is the case and we assume B (line 3) \n" ); document.write( "The idea is to see if it generates a contradiction.\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "The line P & ~P is a contradiction because one portion is true while the other is false, which makes P & ~P always false. \n" ); document.write( "Or perhaps another approach is to look at line 7 where we have P = ~P. This isn't possible because if P is true then ~P is false, and vice versa. There's no way to have true equal false. So we could have stopped at that point to find the contradiction.\r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "Therefore, the negation of the assumption must be the case and we have ~B instead as the proper conclusion. \r \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( "\n" ); document.write( "I used arrows in place of horseshoe symbols. \n" ); document.write( "I used ampersands (&) in place of the dots. \n" ); document.write( "Instead of a triple equal sign, I used a regular equal sign. \n" ); document.write( " \n" ); document.write( " |