srch

This site based on the Open Logic Project proof checker.. Modifications by students and faculty at Cal. State University, Monterey Bay. See Credits. for details ...

Also note that the sidebar has a list of common logic symbols. ... There's a few logic calculators that might be able to help you as well ...

I don't have a Mac, and I didn't open the source code package, hence my question. Also, why not just build a proof solver?

Their use of 'therefore' in a proof flags implication introduction, sometimes discharging an assumption into an antecedent of a new conditional. Some of their annotations appear to be mistaken. It appears they use a variant of Raa (A,-A/F) implicitly, since it appears to be missing from their rules.

This site based on the Open Logic Project proof checker.. Modifications by students and faculty at Cal. State University, Monterey Bay. See Credits. for details ...

9. (A > B) > (C > B) 7, 8 CP. I'm not sure which logical system I'm using, but my textbook is elementary symbolic logic by Gustason. After step 9, I thought I could make the assumption C > B and follow that with a second assumption that would end up giving me (C > D) or (~C v D), but I'm not sure how to get there.

This just came to mind while I was messing around on Wolfram Alpha. The thing solves algebra, and basic symbolic logic uses, well, ...

Deductive Proof Calculator? I'm looking to find a deductive proof calculator for solving deductive proofs. I want something that takes the problem, proves how the premise leads to the conclusion, and includes the rules that were used to make the proof (like DeM, CA, Simp, CP, and RAA).

Is there a proof calculator for basic symbolic logic? This just came to mind while I was messing around on Wolfram Alpha. The thing solves algebra, and basic symbolic logic uses, well, I don't want to say the same sort of symbol manipulation because the overlap is imperfect, but both proofs and algebra work by manipulating symbols via a set of ...

I'm currently taking a logic course at uni and more than anything I am having considerable trouble simply wrapping my head around proof via ...

Proofs in textbooks are practice for proofs of statements you find elsewhere. Practice and exposure to different kinds of problems. It takes a lot of internalization before you can start to apply what you've learned in contexts that aren't "pre-selected" for you, as a big part of the work is noticing that you can frame a given question in logical terms.

Hi! I'm a Maths undergraduate. Amongst the various fields in Mathematical Logic, I feel like some like Set Theory and Model Theory are more Mathematical (that is, its practice can be as "devoid of epistemic meaning" as any branch of Algebra, limited to proving theorems), and others like Modal Logic might have more room for relationships with Philosophy, Epistemology, Philosophy of …

Can anyone help with this Natural Deduction predicate logic proof? Question is: from the premise: "∃xP(x,x)" prove: "∃x∃yP(x,y)" I'm ...

I need to proof ¬(P→Q)→(P∧¬Q) with Natural Deduction. I tried a bit but I got frustrated so I used this solver . However, I'm confused by ...

Laws of form and first order Logic. In Appendix 2 of Spencer Browns Laws of Form he develops the propositional logic out of his calculus of indications. Also there is mentioned that he describes also first order logic with this approach but i …

I'm looking to find a deductive proof calculator for solving deductive proofs. I want something that takes the problem, proves how the ...

I'm supposed to use conditional proofs, but I can't figure it out ... but my textbook is elementary symbolic logic by Gustason.

A Logic Calculator · More posts you may like · Enjoy the full Reddit experience in the app.

Laws of form and first order Logic. In Appendix 2 of Spencer Browns Laws of Form he develops the propositional logic out of his calculus of indications. Also there is mentioned that he describes also first order logic with this approach but i did not find any reference in other works or on the internet.

9. (A > B) > (C > B) 7, 8 CP. I'm not sure which logical system I'm using, but my textbook is elementary symbolic logic by Gustason. After step 9, I thought I could make the assumption C > B and follow that with a second assumption that would end up giving me (C > D) or (~C v D), but I'm not sure how to get there.

Is there a proof calculator for basic symbolic logic? This just came to mind while I was messing around on Wolfram Alpha. The thing solves algebra, and basic symbolic logic uses, well, I don't want to say the same sort of symbol manipulation because the overlap is imperfect, but both proofs and algebra work by manipulating symbols via a set of well-defined rules.

A ⊃ B A ∨ C D ⊃ B D ∨ ∼C ∴B ~C ∨ D 4 Commutative C ⊃ D 5 Implication C ⊃ B 3,6 Hypothetical Syllogism B ∨ B 1,2,7 Constructive ...