0
$\begingroup$

So I have gathered/learned a total of 8 different rules of inference & 10 rules of equivalence for proofs: making a total of 18 proofs (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Disjunctive Syllogism, Hypothetical Syllogism, Conjunction, Addition, Simplification, Constructive Dilemma, De Morgan's Law, Association, Distribution, Commutativity, Double Negation, Contraposition, Material Implication, Material Equivalence, Expotation, and Tautology). I want to turn the following premises GIVEN into a conclusion using the rules I know and mentioned.

Premises:

  1. $(G \wedge I) \implies H$
  2. $(I \implies H) \implies F$

Conclusion [What I want] : $G\implies F$

My Progress :

  1. $(G \wedge I) \implies H$
  2. $(I \implies H) \implies F\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad [ G \implies F]$
  3. $G \implies (I \implies H)\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad [1, $exp]
  4. $\sim(I \implies H) \vee F\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\; [2, $Impl]

Not sure what else to do.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

So I have gathered/learned a total of 8 different rules of inference & 10 rules of equivalence for proofs: making a total of 18 proofs (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Disjunctive Syllogism, Hypothetical Syllogism, Conjunction, Addition, Simplification, Constructive Dilemma, De Morgan's Law, Association, Distribution, Commutativity, Double Negation, Contraposition, Material Implication, Material Equivalence, Expotation, and Tautology).

Hypothetical Syllogism is the rule of inference you seek:$$\dfrac{\phi\to\psi\qquad \psi\to\rho}{\phi\to\rho}$$

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Using the first premise, we can find an equivalence : $$ (G \wedge I) \implies H \equiv (G\implies H)\vee (I\implies H) $$ We have that from second premise $(I \implies H) \implies F$ so notice that : $$ [(I \implies H)\wedge[(I \implies H) \implies F]]\implies F\qquad\text{[Modus Ponens]} $$ Therefore : $$ (G \wedge I) \implies H \equiv (G\implies F)\vee F$$ Which means $G\implies F$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What rules were followed if I may ask? The issue is I need to follow the rules mentioned to get to the conclusion. Note: The [𝐺⟹𝐹] is next to the 2nd premise to show that the premises given are what I use along with the rules. $\endgroup$ – DylanT99 Nov 1 '20 at 4:32
  • $\begingroup$ The first one I do not recall it has a specific name as for the remaining equivalences I applied modus ponens since $[I \implies H]$ and $[I \implies H]\implies F$ would imply $F$ $\endgroup$ – user844292 Nov 1 '20 at 4:36
  • $\begingroup$ I have edited my question and showed how I used Modus Ponens. $\endgroup$ – user844292 Nov 1 '20 at 4:45
  • $\begingroup$ Correction : answer* $\endgroup$ – user844292 Nov 1 '20 at 4:54

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.