Could someone please tell me if i have proved this sequence correct or not? Is it ok to state e.g. ¬f in row 7, but then assume f in row 13?
(¬s → t) ∧ ¬(s ∧ t) , k → ¬f, t → k ⊢ f→ s
1 (¬s → t) ∧ ¬(s ∧ t) premis
2 k → ¬f premis
3 t → k premis
4 ¬s → t ∧e1, 1
------------------------------ 1 proof-box
5 t assumption
6 k →e 3,5
7 ¬f →e 2,6
------------------------------ 1 end of proof-box
8 t → ¬f →i 5-7
------------------------------ 2 proof-box
9 ¬s assumption
10 t →e 4,9
11 ¬f →e 10,8
------------------------------ 2 end of proof-box
12 ¬s → ¬f →i 9-11
------------------------------ 3 proof-box
13 f assumption
------------------------------ 4 proof-box
14 ¬s assumption
15 ¬f →e 12,14
16 ⊥ →e 13,15
------------------------------ 4 end of proof-box
17 ¬¬s →i 14-16
18 s ¬¬e 17
------------------------------ 3 end of proof-box
19 f → s →i 13-18
Your proof is valid. It is a little inelegant, but every inference is good.
It is essentially a proof by reductio ad absurdum (inside a conditional proof).
So, you proof can be pruned a bit, by merging all those conditional proofs into one.