# Logic proof help

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » Logic proof help

Tue 28 Jan, 2014 10:06 pm
Good night, I´m trying t o learn by myself a little about formal logic, but it has been difficult. I understand what are the logic rules involved but I don´t know how to solve problems.

For example, I don't know how to solve this:

1. (F∨E)→~D
2. S∨D
3. E ∴ S

It seems easy, but I don't even know where to start. If someone could help me, I would be very grateful.

Thanks.

PS: If you could validate it with this checker, better yet it's proof #3: http://www.poweroflogic.com/cgi/Proof/checkprf.cgi?exercise=8.1C

alethes sophia

Mon 3 Jul, 2017 08:04 pm
@SheKeptHerBeauty,
Maybe it's too late to respond to this post, but maybe it will still help.

1. (F∨E)→~D
2. S∨D
3. E ∴ S

Translation --
Step 1: It is possible that when either F or E (or both) are actual, then D is not actual.
Step 2: It's now true that either S or D (or both) are actual.
Step 3: It is now true that E is actual. Therefore, it is also now true that S is actual.

Why is it now true that S is actual?
(i) To start, E is now actual. Which means that D is not actual, because of step 1.
(ii) In step 2, S is the only thing that can be actual because it step 2 says that at least one of the two must be actual. And since D is ruled out as being actual in step 1, the only thing that remains is S.
(iii) That is why the conclusion is that since it's now true that E is actual, it is true that S is actual.

Of course, these logical proofs are not entirely conclusive, so long as we have an non-exhaustive or irrelevant set of premises. The conclusion only holds if the premises are not only accurate and relevant, but also exhaustive. Presumably, the only sort of conclusion that we can have is about ourselves, since that, at least, has the real potential to be complete, accurate, and entirely relevant.

alethes sophia

Mon 3 Jul, 2017 08:09 pm
@alethes sophia,
PS - by "actual," I mean "actually true." And by "potential," I mean something like "potentially true."

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » Logic proof help