This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full DocumentThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 19, CP 11) (P → Q) v (Q → P) 9, MI Theorems and Valid Arguments A connection between valid arguments and theorems: An argument of L is valid just in case its corresponding conditional is a theorem. An argument’s corresponding conditional is what we get when we form the conditional using the conjunction of an argument’s premises as the antecedent, and the conclusion as the consequent . Argument: P v Q, ~P .˙. Q Corresponding conditional: [(P v Q) ● ~P] → Q So it’s possible to show that an argument is valid by forming the corresponding conditional and then deriving it from no premises. More Examples of Theorems [(H → I) → H] → H [(P ● Q) v R] → [(~R v Q) → (P → Q)] [P v (~P ● Q)] ↔ (P v Q)...
View
Full Document
 Fall '08
 Way
 Logic, Simp

Click to edit the document details