# Is this argument valid, or even a WFF?

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » Is this argument valid, or even a WFF?

Fri 17 Oct, 2008 08:48 pm
Is this argument valid, or even a WFF:

1. A(x)(Cat(x) -> (Cute(x) ^ Eats(x, salmon)))
2. Cat(Chloe) /:. Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon)

1. A(x)(E(y)(treats(x,y) -> specialist(x,y))
2. treats(Doug, cardiopulmonary diseases) /:. specalist(Doug, cardiopulmonary diseases)

How do I prove both of these?

Why do some Venn diagrams use the outside of the circle?

Victor Eremita

Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:06 pm
@Protoman2050,
I'm a bit rusty in logic, but from what I remember from 2nd year is this right?

1. A(x)(Cat(x) -> (Cute(x) ^ Eats(x, salmon)))
2. Cat(Chloe)
:. Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon)
asm ~ ( Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon) )

3. ~Cute(Chloe) V ~Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from asm)

4. Cat(Chloe) (from 2)

5. Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from 1 and 4)

6. Cute(Chloe) (from 5)

7. Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from 5)

8. ~Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from 3 and 6)

:. Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon)

Protoman2050

Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:11 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:
I'm a bit rusty in logic, but from what I remember from 2nd year is this right?

1. A(x)(Cat(x) -> (Cute(x) ^ Eats(x, salmon)))
2. Cat(Chloe)
:. Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon)
asm ~ ( Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon) )

3. ~Cute(Chloe) V ~Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from asm)

4. Cat(Chloe) (from 2)

5. Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from 1 and 4)

6. Cute(Chloe) (from 5)

7. Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from 5)

8. ~Eats(Chloe, salmon) (from 3 and 6)

:. Cute(Chloe) ^ Eats(Chloe, salmon)

What's "asm", again?

Victor Eremita

Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:14 pm
@Protoman2050,
assume.
We assume the opposite of P and derive a contradiction in order to show that P is true.

Protoman2050

Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:29 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:
assume.
We assume the opposite of P and derive a contradiction in order to show that P is true.

Ah, thanks.

Is this valid:

1. A(Cat) A(x)(x E Cat v ~(x E Cat))
2. Cat(Chloe) /:. ~~(Chloe E Cat)

1. A(x)(Human(x) -> Mortal(x))
2. E(x)(Human(x) -> Philosopher(x)) /:. E(x)(Human(x) -> (Mortal(x) ^ Philosopher(x))

Is this equivalent to what would be in category logic:

All Humans are Mortal
Some Humans are Philosophers /:. Some Humans are Mortal and Philosophers

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » Is this argument valid, or even a WFF?