3
$\begingroup$

$[(\sim p \vee q) \wedge p ] \Rightarrow q $

What should be done next in order to apply direct proof to the example above?

The following process has been already done but seemingly it's incorrect:

1st. Apply distributive property

2nd. After applying complementation it results into $[ F \vee (q \wedge p) ]$

3rd. Applying distributive property a second time.

Eventualy the result is $q \wedge P$ , which cannot conclude anything... what shall I do?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hint: $[\neg p \lor q ]\equiv [p\implies q]$ $\endgroup$ – Dan Christensen Aug 19 '14 at 15:38
3
$\begingroup$

Since you have the antecedent $[(\sim p \vee q) \wedge p ]$ reduced to $q \land p$ (which is correct), you simplify (or you might call it $\land$-elimination) to get $q$, as desired.

That is, $$q\land p$$

$$\therefore q$$

Hence, we can claim that $[(\sim p \vee q) \wedge p ] \Rightarrow q$.

(Therefore $p$ follows as well, but you are asked to show that the antecedent implies the consequent, so $p$ isn't relevant here.)

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Use conjunction elimination, or take the long route.

$\left.\begin{align} (p\wedge q) \to q & & \text{premise} \\ (\neg p \vee \neg q) \vee q & &\text{conditional} \\ \neg p \vee (\neg q\vee q) & &\text{disjunctive associativity} \\ \neg p \vee \top & &\text{disjunctive negation} \\ \top & &\text{universal bound} \end{align}\right\}\quad(p\wedge q)\implies q \quad \text{conjunctive elimination}$

$\endgroup$

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.