Question

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

score 485 · Answer 1 · 2026-04-13 08:13:52

485

Views

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

Published on 13 Apr 2026 - 8:13

score 137 · Answer 2 · 2026-04-13 07:20:32

137

Views

Fitch proof of Peirce's Law

Published on 13 Apr 2026 - 7:20

score 1.2k · Answer 3 · 2026-04-08 16:54:40

1.2k

Views

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

Published on 08 Apr 2026 - 16:54

score 231 · Answer 4 · 2026-04-16 08:02:38

231

Views

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

Published on 16 Apr 2026 - 8:02

score 141 · Answer 5 · 2026-04-11 13:07:45

141

Views

Do I have to discharge an antecedent that I assume?

Published on 11 Apr 2026 - 13:07

score 127 · Answer 6 · 2026-04-12 01:30:19

127

Views

Optimality results for Fitch-style natural deduction proofs

Published on 12 Apr 2026 - 1:30

score 57 · Answer 7 · 2026-04-17 00:28:00

57

Views

Proof 3 sequents with natural deduction

Published on 17 Apr 2026 - 0:28

score 725 · Answer 8 · 2026-04-13 14:14:20

725

Views

Showing a Set is Inconsistent In Logic

Published on 13 Apr 2026 - 14:14

score 1.3k · Answer 9 · 2026-05-10 15:38:08

1.3k

Views

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

Published on 10 May 2026 - 15:38

score 357 · Answer 10 · 2026-04-14 23:06:56

357

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 14 Apr 2026 - 23:06

score 241 · Answer 11 · 2026-04-09 22:41:03

241

Views

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

Published on 09 Apr 2026 - 22:41

score 939 · Answer 12 · 2026-04-10 00:51:14

939

Views

Natural deduction without premises given?

Published on 10 Apr 2026 - 0:51

score 1k · Answer 13 · 2026-04-25 03:50:41

1k

Views

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

Published on 25 Apr 2026 - 3:50

score 44 · Answer 14 · 2026-04-14 23:55:47

44

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 14 Apr 2026 - 23:55

score 737 · Answer 15 · 2026-04-16 00:51:58

737

Views

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

Published on 16 Apr 2026 - 0:51

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