@nemo66,
nemo66 wrote:(De Morgan's laws cannot be used).
It makes sense that DeMorgan cannot be used, as it is DeMorgan that is to be proved here!
I think for the first problem, there are missing parentheses and it should instead be (¬PvQ)→¬(P&¬Q), otherwise it would not follow.
We proceed here by using reductio ad absurdum.
Code:
1 (1) ¬PvQ assumption
2 (2) P&¬Q assumption (assume the negation of the conclusion)
3 (3) ¬P assumption
2 (4) P & elim
2, 3 (5) <contradiction> 3, 4 not-elimination
6 (6) Q assumption
2 (7) ¬Q 2, & elim
2,6(8) <contradiction> 6,7 not-elimination
1,2(9) <contradiction> 1,3,5,6, 8 v-elimination
1 (10) ¬(P&¬Q) 2, 9 not-introduction.
(11) (¬PvQ)→¬(P&¬Q) 1, 10 conditional proof □
In a reductio ad absurdum, making use of not-elim and not-intro rules is necessary. It cannot be done otherwise.
The second one ¬(P&Q)→¬Pv¬Q is as follows:
Code:
1 (1) ¬(P&Q) Assumption
2 (2) ¬(¬Pv¬Q) Assumption
3 (3) ¬P Assumption
3 (4) ¬Pv¬Q 3, v-intro
2, 3 (5) <contradiction> 2, 4 not-elim
2 (6) P 3, 5 not-intro (also double negation if allowed)
7 (7) ¬Q assumption
7 (8) ¬Pv¬Q 7, v-intro
2, 7 (9) <contradiction> 2, 8 not-elim
2 (10) Q 7, 9 not-intro (double negation if allowed)
2 (11) P&Q 6, 10 &-intro
1, 2 (12) <contradiction> 1, 11 not-elim
1 (13) ¬Pv¬Q 2, 11 not-intro ( and Double negation)
(14) ¬(P&Q)→¬Pv¬Q 1, 13 conditional proof □
If you allow me to advise you, then I advise you to try to work it out by yourself thoroughly before seeking help, otherwise you will not benefit fully from your studies. As very last resort seek help.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace