## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Logic Rule 1: The following are six types of justification allowed for statements in proofs: (1) “By hypothesis . . .” (2) “By axiom . . .” (3) “By theorem . . .” (previously proved) (4) “By definition . . .” (5) “By step . . .” (a previous step in the argument) (6) “By rule . . . of logic.” Logic Rule 2: To prove a statement the hypothesis implies the conclusion, assume the negation of the stated conclusion (RAA hypothesis) and deduce an absurd statement, using the original hypothesis if needed in your deduction. Logic Rule 3: Negating a statement twice returns it to the original statement. Thus the statement “not (not S)” means the same as “S.” Logic Rule 4: The hypothesis does not imply the conclusion means the same as the hypothesis and not the conclusion will hold true. The statement “the hypothesis does not imply the conclusion” means the same thing as “the hypothesis holds true and the conclusion does not hold true. Logic Rule 5: The statement “statements one and two both do not hold true” means the same as “statement one does not hold true or statement two does not hold true.” Logic Rule 6: The statement “not all x for some statement S about x” means the same as “there exists an x that the statement S about x does not hold true.” Logic Rule 7: The statement “there does not exist an x for some statement S about x” means the same as “for all x the statement S about x does not hold true.” Logic Rule 8: If steps P implies step Q and steps P are steps in a proof, then step Q is a justifiable step. Logic Rule 9: (a) While step P implies step Q and step Q implies step R it can be inferred that step P implies step R. (b) The statement that step P and step Q hold true implies that step P holds true, the statement that step P and step Q hold true implies that step Q holds true. (c) Every implication is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The statement “not Q implies not P” holds true if and only if the statement “P implies Q” holds true. Logic Rule 10: For every statement P, “P or not P” is a valid step in a proof (law of excluded middle).

. Suppose that proofs of C are carried out from each of the case assumptions S1. (3) For all X. .Ryan Kidd HW #1 Problem 6 Logic Rule 11: Suppose the disjunction of statements S1 or S2 or . (4) If X is equal to Y and S(X) is a statement about X. S2. Sn is already a valid step in a proof. all Y. . . X is equal to X. Then C can be concluded as a valid step in the proof (proof by cases). and all Z. . Logic Rule 12: (1) For all X. then the statement about X (S(X)) holds true if and only if that statement holds true for Y (S(Y)). X is equal to Y if and only if Y is equal to X. . Sn. . (2) For all X and all Y. X is equal to Y and Y is equal to Z implies that X is equal to Z.

- criterion 1 2 3 6 rubric
- CMAT Workshop
- Intro Proofwriting
- ps1
- math reflection
- Enunciados Nomológicos y Condicionales Contrafácticos - D'Alessio
- The Toilet Paper Problem
- Methods of Mathematics Proof
- Truth and proof - Alfred Tarski.pdf
- TARSKI, ALFRED. Truth and proof. In Scientific Amercican, 1969.pdf
- Zeiger - Hammer of the Patriot
- Related Literature
- lecture01.pdf
- sol-1
- lecture8-cont.pdf
- Stoic Logic
- K a Rewrite-Based Framework for Modular Language Design, Semantics, Analysis and Implementation - Version 2
- Pineda_GoodReasonsInPhilosophyForChildren-.pdf
- 5740
- Chapter1 Functions Notes
- standards-for-mathematical-practice
- Welcome to the Complicated World of Logic
- Empiricism
- Vagueness and Truth by Convention
- Redesigning Decision
- PIMS the Rise of British Logic (1983)
- 5 Minimize
- Aristotelian v Non-aristotelian Thinking
- Art of Deduction
- Ludwig Wittgenstein _ Tractatus logicus-philosophicus

Read Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading