Question

Is it possible to prove that we found the shortest proof?

score 482 · Answer 1 · 2018-10-02 00:59:49

482

Views

Is it possible to prove that we found the shortest proof?

Published on 02 Oct 2018 - 0:59

score 134 · Answer 2 · 2018-10-05 00:04:39

134

Views

Fitch proof of Peirce's Law

Published on 05 Oct 2018 - 0:04

score 1.2k · Answer 3 · 2018-10-09 01:37:31

1.2k

Views

How to prove double negation elimination without using $\bot$?

Published on 09 Oct 2018 - 1:37

score 228 · Answer 4 · 2018-10-10 03:40:18

228

Views

Logical proof using sentential logic $\Big(\big(A \& B \big) \lor \big((\neg{}A \& B) \lor (A \& \neg{}B)\big)\Big)$

Published on 10 Oct 2018 - 3:40

score 138 · Answer 5 · 2018-10-11 17:56:53

138

Views

Do I have to discharge an antecedent that I assume?

Published on 11 Oct 2018 - 17:56

score 124 · Answer 6 · 2018-10-12 17:28:05

124

Views

Optimality results for Fitch-style natural deduction proofs

Published on 12 Oct 2018 - 17:28

score 52 · Answer 7 · 2018-10-17 18:20:48

52

Views

Proof 3 sequents with natural deduction

Published on 17 Oct 2018 - 18:20

score 722 · Answer 8 · 2018-10-19 16:22:21

722

Views

Showing a Set is Inconsistent In Logic

Published on 19 Oct 2018 - 16:22

score 1.3k · Answer 9 · 2018-10-28 23:55:35

1.3k

Views

Prove (¬(∀(¬()))) ⊢ (∃ ()) by Natural Deduction

Published on 28 Oct 2018 - 23:55

score 354 · Answer 10 · 2018-11-05 07:07:52

354

Views

Find a natural deduction proof to show ∃x∃y (S(x,y) ∨ S(y,x)) ⊢ ∃x∃y S(x,y) by predicate logic.

Published on 05 Nov 2018 - 7:07

score 238 · Answer 11 · 2018-11-08 19:25:41

238

Views

Proof for $\lor$ Elim: rule in Soundness Theorem

Published on 08 Nov 2018 - 19:25

score 936 · Answer 12 · 2018-11-13 21:17:29

936

Views

Natural deduction without premises given?

Published on 13 Nov 2018 - 21:17

score 1k · Answer 13 · 2026-03-19 16:12:58

1k

Views

Relationship between sequent calculus and Hilbert systems, natural deduction, etc

Published on 19 Mar 2026 - 16:12

score 41 · Answer 14 · 2018-11-21 12:41:21

41

Views

How to prove ~($\forall$x Q(x)) is logically equivalent to $\exists$x(~Q(x)) using natural deduction for first order logic

Published on 21 Nov 2018 - 12:41

score 734 · Answer 15 · 2018-11-21 16:06:16

734

Views

Proving ∀x(A(x) ∨ B) → ∀xA(x) ∨ B, with x is not in B, by natural deduction

Published on 21 Nov 2018 - 16:06

List Question

Is it possible to prove that we found the shortest proof?

Fitch proof of Peirce's Law

How to prove double negation elimination without using $\bot$?

Logical proof using sentential logic $\Big(\big(A \& B \big) \lor \big((\neg{}A \& B) \lor (A \& \neg{}B)\big)\Big)$

Do I have to discharge an antecedent that I assume?

Optimality results for Fitch-style natural deduction proofs

Proof 3 sequents with natural deduction

Showing a Set is Inconsistent In Logic

Prove (¬(∀(¬()))) ⊢ (∃ ()) by Natural Deduction

Find a natural deduction proof to show ∃x∃y (S(x,y) ∨ S(y,x)) ⊢ ∃x∃y S(x,y) by predicate logic.

Proof for $\lor$ Elim: rule in Soundness Theorem

Natural deduction without premises given?

Relationship between sequent calculus and Hilbert systems, natural deduction, etc

How to prove ~($\forall$x Q(x)) is logically equivalent to $\exists$x(~Q(x)) using natural deduction for first order logic

Proving ∀x(A(x) ∨ B) → ∀xA(x) ∨ B, with x is not in B, by natural deduction

Trending Questions

Popular # Hahtags

Popular Questions