Quote:
Originally Posted by dsljrich  We have not learned those rules yet. The rules we use are
∃E , ∀E, |
don't know what these mean. i used (x) to mean
.
Quote:
|
ACP (Assuming for conditional proof)
|
my first assumption was for conditional proof. that is what C.P. at the end meant. it said lines 3 to 14 were a conditional proof starting with the assumption at line 3.
Quote:
|
or AIP (Assuming for Indirect Proof)
|
didn't use this, but maybe you can to use your rules with it
Quote:
|
&E , →E , ¬& , ¬v , ¬→ , →v , &C , &A , vC , vA , vE* , →E* ,
|
i have no idea what any of these mean
[/quote]¬(Biconditional) , →(Biconditional)[/quote]how is it that both these symbols mean the same thing?
Quote:
|
those are the only rules we can use. So is there any way you can solve the problem using on those rules?
|
the rules i used were not advanced. they are basic rules, in the Rosser's System of logic, as taught in "Symbolic Logic" by Copi. chances are you know these rules, but under different names, and maybe applied slightly differently. for instance, what you call existential and universal intro, i call existential and universal instantiation. when you say "expo" in the same context, i would say "generalization". i am familiar with quantifier negation, but i did not use that here. so unless you describe what your rules mean, i can't help you