I'm working on a question from one of my past college test. I have to translate a text into a set of formal rules of inference. The text is:
"Ugo is a LP student that also writes software in Snowball. Anyone who writes software in Snowball finds a good paid job. So we can say that some LP student can find a good paid job."
Since there are quantifiers I assume it's a first-order logic problem, so I defined the individual constants and the predicates:
$C=\{ugo\}$
$P=\{LPS, SD, GPW\}$
Where:
- LPS mean LP student
- SD mean Snowball developer
- GPW mean good paid worker
My try with the rules:
[maybe modus pones] $$ \frac{(\forall x)(SD(x)\rightarrow GPW(x)), SD(ugo)}{GPW(ugo)} $$ [dont know if its a real rule] $$ \frac{LPS(ugo), GPW(ugo) }{(\exists x)(LPS(x), GPW(x))} $$
"I have to translate a text into a set of formal rules of inference". Eh? Really?? You can't translate propositions into rules of inference - they are different kinds of thing entirely. Propositions are true or false; rules of inference truth-preserving or otherwise.
The informal inference
can be regimented
using obvious letters for the predicates and '$u$' as a constant denoting Ugo to translate the three propositions involved. The obvious proof showing that the conclusion does indeed follow from the two premisses would go
where the rules used are And-Elimination (twice), Universal Elimination [a.k.a. U. Instantiation], and Modus Ponens, and then And-Introduction, and Existential Introduction. [Or a rearrangement of that proof, if you use e.g. a Fitch-style system.]