2
$\begingroup$

Working on P.D. Magnus. forallX: an Introduction to Formal Logic (pp. 182, exercise B. 9):

$ \def\fitch#1#2{\quad\begin{array}{|l}#1\\\hline#2\end{array}} \fitch{\neg (W \to W)\\(W \leftrightarrow W) \wedge W\\E \vee (W \to \neg (E \wedge W))}{ \fitch{W}{ W }\\ W \to W\\ \bot } $

As I understand, I need to derive a contradiction assuming those sentences as premises. Is this the right approach?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Correct........ $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 23 at 17:09
0
$\begingroup$

Yes. That is sufficient.

You can also argue that the first premise is by itself a contradiction (because it cannot be satisfied by any interpretation of $W$), so therefore all three premises do form a jointly inconsistent set (since there is no interpretation of $\{E,W\}$ that will simultaneously satisfy all of them).

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.