Natural deduction proof of $p \rightarrow q \vdash \lnot(p \land \lnot q)$

Question

So yeah, the entire question is pretty much in the title. $$p \rightarrow q \vdash \lnot(p \land \lnot q)$$

I've been able to derive the reverse, but I don't how to logically go from the premise to the conclusion using natural deduction only. I can see that the two formulas are equal using transformations.

These are the rules I'm allowed to use:

Please help me understand how to do this.

Answer 1

$1.$ $p \rightarrow q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ -- (Premise)

$2.$ $p \wedge \neg q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ -- (Assume the contrary to what has to be proved in the conclusion)

$3.$ $p \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ -- ($\wedge E$ on $2.$)

$4.$ $\neg q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ -- ($\wedge E$ on $2.$)

$5.$ $q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ -- (Modus ponens on $1.$ and $3.$)

$6.$ $\bot \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ -- (bot introduction due to contradiction on $4.$ and $5.$)

$7.$ $\neg(p \wedge \neg q) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ --(assumption wrong due to arrival of contradiction)