Clik here to view.
Answer by Frank Hubeny for Proof Disjunctive Syllogism using Natural Deduction
It helps to use a proof checker to make sure one uses the rules correctly. Here is a proof:The first five lines are the same as your proof. However, they only considered the left side, $P$, of the...
View ArticleAnswer by Mauro ALLEGRANZA for Proof Disjunctive Syllogism using Natural...
No, it is not.You have a disjunction as 2nd premise : thus you have to consider both disjuncts with $(\lor \text E)$.The first sub-case, with $p$ as assumption, is Ok.You have to add the second...
View ArticleProof Disjunctive Syllogism using Natural Deduction
So, how can I have to prove this using natural deduction:$\lnot p, p \lor q \vdash q$What I did is:$\lnot p$$p \lor q$p assumption$\bot$ from 1&3q from 4Is it ok 100% ? What can I do to make it...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Answer by Mackey Johnstone for Proof Disjunctive Syllogism using Natural...
Proof without ⊥ elimination (or any derived rules).Sorry for necroposting, but here's a way of solving the proof without the use of a contradiction elimination I couldn't find online.Lines 9 and 10...
View Article
