Proving Validity of a Symbolic Argument Using Truth Tables
I am looking to determine the validity of this argument using the truth table method:
((P → ¬P) → P) → P
I cannot yet embed the image of my truth table on here because I haven't earned enough points of my profile yet, so I will try to explain it the best I can.
I have used these column headers:
| P | ¬P | P → ¬P | (P → ¬P) → P | P |
After filling out this truth table I have found that the first row reads:
| T | F | F | T | T |
And the second row reads:
| F | T | T | F | T |
Neither rows show all true premises and a true conclusion, however neither show all true premises and a false conclusion (which would indicate invalidity).
However I am not sure whether the absence of a row where there a false conclusion from true premises allows me to confidently read that the argument is a valid one.
As you can probably tell, I am a beginner in logic, so I would appreciate any help to clarify this. Thank you.