$\fitch{
1. A \quad Premise\\
2. (A \lor B) \rightarrow N \quad Premise}{
\fitch{
3. A \quad \ Assume}
{4. A \lor B \quad \lor \ Intro \ 3\\
5. N \quad \rightarrow \ Elim \ 2,4}\\
6. A \rightarrow N \quad \rightarrow \ Intro \ 3-5}$
Note that this proof never used premise 1, as indeed $(A \lor B) \rightarrow N$ follows from $A \rightarrow n$ alone; it is an example of the valid inference pattern called Strengthening the Antecedent. Are you sure $A$ was an actual premise?
0
Bumbble Comm
On
Proof. Assume $A$ and $(A\lor B)\implies N$ by addition it follows that $A\lor B$ is true and by modus ponens we can reason that $N$ must be true consequently $A\implies N$.
$\def\fitch#1#2{\begin{array}{|l}#1 \\ \hline #2\end{array}}$
$\fitch{ 1. A \quad Premise\\ 2. (A \lor B) \rightarrow N \quad Premise}{ \fitch{ 3. A \quad \ Assume} {4. A \lor B \quad \lor \ Intro \ 3\\ 5. N \quad \rightarrow \ Elim \ 2,4}\\ 6. A \rightarrow N \quad \rightarrow \ Intro \ 3-5}$
Note that this proof never used premise 1, as indeed $(A \lor B) \rightarrow N$ follows from $A \rightarrow n$ alone; it is an example of the valid inference pattern called Strengthening the Antecedent. Are you sure $A$ was an actual premise?