Thu 27 Nov, 2008 04:06 pm - Couldn't that proof be done like this:
1. (A -> B) & C
2. ~(B & C) /B -> C
3. B CPA
4. C 1 Simp.
5. B -> C 3-4 CP
Is this correct? (view)
Thu 27 Nov, 2008 02:06 pm - [quote=VideCorSpoon]There are usually two types of nested proofs, [B]indirect [/B]and [B]conditional[/B] proofs. For all intensive purposes, I am going to give you the general layout of the proof.... (view)
Thu 27 Nov, 2008 01:21 am - Can you give a simple example of a nested conditional proof; I just can't comprehend them...what conditional is the assumed antecedent coming from?
Are there ever nested indirect proofs? (view)
Wed 26 Nov, 2008 06:12 pm - Are CP and RAA expanded versions of MP and MT?
Is this a correct proof of MI:
1. A -> B /~A v B
-------------------------------
2. ~(~A v B) RAA
3. A + ~B 2 DeM (correct?)
4. A 3... (view)
Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:29 pm - [quote=Victor Eremita]assume.
We assume the opposite of P and derive a contradiction in order to show that P is true.[/quote]
Ah, thanks.
Is this valid:
1. A(Cat) A(x)(x E Cat v ~(x E Cat))... (view)
Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:11 pm - [quote=Victor Eremita]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) ^... (view)
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)
What about this one:
1. A(x)(E(y)(treats(x,y)... (view)
Mon 28 Jul, 2008 12:15 am - [quote=Didymos Thomas]Why are we thinking of God in the terms of being a person in the first place?[/quote]
Because only personal entities can love, suffer, etc. (view)
Mon 28 Jul, 2008 12:11 am - [quote=Didymos Thomas]Maybe, then, you could give a classic example of the argument, or elaborate on the argument.[/quote]
If God were unity, then He'd be both the knower and the known. All... (view)
