Proof using natural deduction (Tautology)












2














I've been asked to prove the following tautology via natural deduction:



$forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx) rightarrow (forall y , Py rightarrow forall z ,Qz)$



I normally use tree proofs, but I don't think I can show those here so I'll say in words what I've done so far.



First, I assume $forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)$ to deduce $lnot Pd lor Qd$ from $forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx)$.



Secondly, I assume $forall y , Py$ and $lnot Pd$ to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall , z Qz)$ from $lnot Pd$.



Thirdly, I assume $Qd$ and am trying to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



If I can make this third deduction I can use OR-elimination to get the conclusion, but I don't see how I can deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



Is there a way to make this third deduction or did I just start my whole proof wrong?






logic first-order-logic predicate-logic natural-deduction formal-proofs







share|cite|improve this question





























    2














    I've been asked to prove the following tautology via natural deduction:



    $forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx) rightarrow (forall y , Py rightarrow forall z ,Qz)$



    I normally use tree proofs, but I don't think I can show those here so I'll say in words what I've done so far.



    First, I assume $forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)$ to deduce $lnot Pd lor Qd$ from $forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx)$.



    Secondly, I assume $forall y , Py$ and $lnot Pd$ to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall , z Qz)$ from $lnot Pd$.



    Thirdly, I assume $Qd$ and am trying to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



    If I can make this third deduction I can use OR-elimination to get the conclusion, but I don't see how I can deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



    Is there a way to make this third deduction or did I just start my whole proof wrong?






    logic first-order-logic predicate-logic natural-deduction formal-proofs







    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2







      I've been asked to prove the following tautology via natural deduction:



      $forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx) rightarrow (forall y , Py rightarrow forall z ,Qz)$



      I normally use tree proofs, but I don't think I can show those here so I'll say in words what I've done so far.



      First, I assume $forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)$ to deduce $lnot Pd lor Qd$ from $forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx)$.



      Secondly, I assume $forall y , Py$ and $lnot Pd$ to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall , z Qz)$ from $lnot Pd$.



      Thirdly, I assume $Qd$ and am trying to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



      If I can make this third deduction I can use OR-elimination to get the conclusion, but I don't see how I can deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



      Is there a way to make this third deduction or did I just start my whole proof wrong?






      logic first-order-logic predicate-logic natural-deduction formal-proofs







      share|cite|improve this question















      I've been asked to prove the following tautology via natural deduction:



      $forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx) rightarrow (forall y , Py rightarrow forall z ,Qz)$



      I normally use tree proofs, but I don't think I can show those here so I'll say in words what I've done so far.



      First, I assume $forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)$ to deduce $lnot Pd lor Qd$ from $forall x , (lnot Px lor Qx)$.



      Secondly, I assume $forall y , Py$ and $lnot Pd$ to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall , z Qz)$ from $lnot Pd$.



      Thirdly, I assume $Qd$ and am trying to deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



      If I can make this third deduction I can use OR-elimination to get the conclusion, but I don't see how I can deduce $(forall y , Py rightarrow forall z , Qz)$ from $Qd$.



      Is there a way to make this third deduction or did I just start my whole proof wrong?






      logic first-order-logic predicate-logic natural-deduction formal-proofs




      logic first-order-logic predicate-logic natural-deduction formal-proofs






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago









      Taroccoesbrocco

      5,14761839




      5,14761839










      asked 2 days ago









      NaborDHNaborDH

      154




      154






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          To deduce $forall y Py to forall z Qz$ from $Qd$, you should deduce $forall z Q z$ from the assumption $Qd$, but this is impossible because of the restriction on the free variable for the rule $forall_i$ (see here for a discussion of the issue).



          Thus, the right approach is to apply the rule $lor_e$ in order to deduce $Qd$ without any assumption on $d$ (i.e. $Qd$ should be discharged), in this way you can correctly apply the rule $forall_i$ to deduce $forall z Q z$. Concretely, the following is a derivation in natural deduction of $forall x(lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y Py to forall z Qz)$.



          begin{equation}
          dfrac{dfrac{[forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)]^circ}{lnot Pz lor Qz}forall_e qquad dfrac{dfrac{[lnot Pz]^* qquad dfrac{[forall y Py]^bullet}{Pz}forall_e}{bot}lnot_e}{Qz}text{efq} qquad [Qz]^*}{dfrac{Qz}{dfrac{forall z Qz}{dfrac{forall y Py to forall z Qz}{forall x (lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y to forall z Qz)}to_i^circ}to_i^bullet}forall_i} lor_e^*
          end{equation}






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for the detailed explanation.
            – NaborDH
            2 days ago










          • @NaborDH - You are welcome!
            – Taroccoesbrocco
            2 days ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062730%2fproof-using-natural-deduction-tautology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2














          To deduce $forall y Py to forall z Qz$ from $Qd$, you should deduce $forall z Q z$ from the assumption $Qd$, but this is impossible because of the restriction on the free variable for the rule $forall_i$ (see here for a discussion of the issue).



          Thus, the right approach is to apply the rule $lor_e$ in order to deduce $Qd$ without any assumption on $d$ (i.e. $Qd$ should be discharged), in this way you can correctly apply the rule $forall_i$ to deduce $forall z Q z$. Concretely, the following is a derivation in natural deduction of $forall x(lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y Py to forall z Qz)$.



          begin{equation}
          dfrac{dfrac{[forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)]^circ}{lnot Pz lor Qz}forall_e qquad dfrac{dfrac{[lnot Pz]^* qquad dfrac{[forall y Py]^bullet}{Pz}forall_e}{bot}lnot_e}{Qz}text{efq} qquad [Qz]^*}{dfrac{Qz}{dfrac{forall z Qz}{dfrac{forall y Py to forall z Qz}{forall x (lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y to forall z Qz)}to_i^circ}to_i^bullet}forall_i} lor_e^*
          end{equation}






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for the detailed explanation.
            – NaborDH
            2 days ago










          • @NaborDH - You are welcome!
            – Taroccoesbrocco
            2 days ago
















          2














          To deduce $forall y Py to forall z Qz$ from $Qd$, you should deduce $forall z Q z$ from the assumption $Qd$, but this is impossible because of the restriction on the free variable for the rule $forall_i$ (see here for a discussion of the issue).



          Thus, the right approach is to apply the rule $lor_e$ in order to deduce $Qd$ without any assumption on $d$ (i.e. $Qd$ should be discharged), in this way you can correctly apply the rule $forall_i$ to deduce $forall z Q z$. Concretely, the following is a derivation in natural deduction of $forall x(lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y Py to forall z Qz)$.



          begin{equation}
          dfrac{dfrac{[forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)]^circ}{lnot Pz lor Qz}forall_e qquad dfrac{dfrac{[lnot Pz]^* qquad dfrac{[forall y Py]^bullet}{Pz}forall_e}{bot}lnot_e}{Qz}text{efq} qquad [Qz]^*}{dfrac{Qz}{dfrac{forall z Qz}{dfrac{forall y Py to forall z Qz}{forall x (lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y to forall z Qz)}to_i^circ}to_i^bullet}forall_i} lor_e^*
          end{equation}






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for the detailed explanation.
            – NaborDH
            2 days ago










          • @NaborDH - You are welcome!
            – Taroccoesbrocco
            2 days ago














          2












          2








          2






          To deduce $forall y Py to forall z Qz$ from $Qd$, you should deduce $forall z Q z$ from the assumption $Qd$, but this is impossible because of the restriction on the free variable for the rule $forall_i$ (see here for a discussion of the issue).



          Thus, the right approach is to apply the rule $lor_e$ in order to deduce $Qd$ without any assumption on $d$ (i.e. $Qd$ should be discharged), in this way you can correctly apply the rule $forall_i$ to deduce $forall z Q z$. Concretely, the following is a derivation in natural deduction of $forall x(lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y Py to forall z Qz)$.



          begin{equation}
          dfrac{dfrac{[forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)]^circ}{lnot Pz lor Qz}forall_e qquad dfrac{dfrac{[lnot Pz]^* qquad dfrac{[forall y Py]^bullet}{Pz}forall_e}{bot}lnot_e}{Qz}text{efq} qquad [Qz]^*}{dfrac{Qz}{dfrac{forall z Qz}{dfrac{forall y Py to forall z Qz}{forall x (lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y to forall z Qz)}to_i^circ}to_i^bullet}forall_i} lor_e^*
          end{equation}






          share|cite|improve this answer












          To deduce $forall y Py to forall z Qz$ from $Qd$, you should deduce $forall z Q z$ from the assumption $Qd$, but this is impossible because of the restriction on the free variable for the rule $forall_i$ (see here for a discussion of the issue).



          Thus, the right approach is to apply the rule $lor_e$ in order to deduce $Qd$ without any assumption on $d$ (i.e. $Qd$ should be discharged), in this way you can correctly apply the rule $forall_i$ to deduce $forall z Q z$. Concretely, the following is a derivation in natural deduction of $forall x(lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y Py to forall z Qz)$.



          begin{equation}
          dfrac{dfrac{[forall x (lnot Px lor Qx)]^circ}{lnot Pz lor Qz}forall_e qquad dfrac{dfrac{[lnot Pz]^* qquad dfrac{[forall y Py]^bullet}{Pz}forall_e}{bot}lnot_e}{Qz}text{efq} qquad [Qz]^*}{dfrac{Qz}{dfrac{forall z Qz}{dfrac{forall y Py to forall z Qz}{forall x (lnot Px lor Qx) to (forall y to forall z Qz)}to_i^circ}to_i^bullet}forall_i} lor_e^*
          end{equation}







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco

          5,14761839




          5,14761839












          • Thanks for the detailed explanation.
            – NaborDH
            2 days ago










          • @NaborDH - You are welcome!
            – Taroccoesbrocco
            2 days ago


















          • Thanks for the detailed explanation.
            – NaborDH
            2 days ago










          • @NaborDH - You are welcome!
            – Taroccoesbrocco
            2 days ago
















          Thanks for the detailed explanation.
          – NaborDH
          2 days ago




          Thanks for the detailed explanation.
          – NaborDH
          2 days ago












          @NaborDH - You are welcome!
          – Taroccoesbrocco
          2 days ago




          @NaborDH - You are welcome!
          – Taroccoesbrocco
          2 days ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062730%2fproof-using-natural-deduction-tautology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Mario Kart Wii

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
          Read more

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

          Image
          5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
          Read more

          Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

          Image
          Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
          Read more