I can't understand exactly when should I use RAA (reductio ad absurdum) rule in natural deduction proofs? What situation should "trigger" me to think "Now it's time to use RAA"?
2026-03-25 07:42:23.1774424543
When should I use RAA in natural deduction proofs?
995 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in PROOF-THEORY
- Decision procedure in Presburger arithmetic
- Is this proof correct? (Proof Theory)
- Finite axiomatizability of theories in infinitary logic?
- Stochastic proof variance
- If $(x^{(n)})^∞_{n=m}$ is Cauchy and if some subsequence of $(x^{(n)})^∞_{n=m}$ converges then so does $(x^{(n)})^∞_{n=m}$
- Deduction in polynomial calculus.
- Are there automated proof search algorithms for extended Frege systems?
- Exotic schemes of implications, examples
- Is there any formal problem that cannot be proven using mathematical induction?
- Proofs using theorems instead of axioms
Related Questions in NATURAL-DEDUCTION
- Predicate logic: Natural deduction: Introducing universal quantifier
- Deduce formula from set of formulas
- Prove the undecidability of a formula
- Natural deduction proof for $(P\to\lnot Q)\to(\lnot P \lor\lnot Q)$
- How do I build a proof in natural deduction?
- Deductive Logic Proof
- Can the natural deduction system prove $P \iff ¬P$ to show that it's a contradiction?
- Exercises and solutions for natural deduction proofs in Robinson and Peano arithmetic
- How would I show that X is equivalent to ((¬X ↔ X ) ∨ X )?
- Equivalence proof by using identities and ‘n series of substitutions: (P ⋁ Q) → (P ⋀ Q) ≡ (P → Q) ⋀ (Q → P).
Related Questions in FORMAL-PROOFS
- What is a gross-looking formal axiomatic proof for a relatively simple proposition?
- Limit of $f(x) = x \bmod k$
- Need help with formalising proofs in Calculus. Convergent and Divergent series:
- Proving either or statements (in group theory)
- Prove a floor function is onto/surjective
- Countability of Fibonacci series
- Can the natural deduction system prove $P \iff ¬P$ to show that it's a contradiction?
- How would I show that X is equivalent to ((¬X ↔ X ) ∨ X )?
- Variations in the Statement of Strong Induction: Equivalent or Different?
- Is this proof correct? (natural deduction)
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
I can think of $4$ explicit situations:
Your goal is the negation of something. If you goal is $\neg \varphi$, assume $\varphi$ and see if you can get a contradiction
Your goal is some atomic statement $P$: Assume $\neg P$, get a contradiction, get $\neg \neg P$ using RAA, and finally derive $P$ from $\neg \neg P$ (classical logics typically have a $\neg \ Elim$ rule for this)
Your goal is a disjunction $\varphi \lor \psi$ ... and you don't have any disjunction that you can work with (if you do have a disjunction, set up a $\lor \ Elim$ on that one.). The nice thing about doing an RAA here is that once you assume $\neg ( \varphi \lor \psi)$, you should be able to derive both $\neg \varphi$ and $\neg \psi$ (using two RAA proofs themselves!), and now you have some useful stuff to work with on your way to a contradiction.
Your goal is an existential $\exists x \ \varphi(x)$ ... and you don't have some other existential to work with (if you do have another existential, set up a $\lor \ Elim$ on that one.). So here the assumption will be $\neg \exists x \ \varphi(x)$ which, with a bit of work (and probably another RAA inside) should allow you to prove $\forall x \ \neg \varphi(x)$ ... and that will be useful to try and get to a contradiction given whatever else you have.