This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Methods to Prove Logical Implications The standard form of an argument (or theorems) can be represented using the logical symbols we have learned so far: (p 1 ∧ p 2 ∧ p 3 ∧ ... p n ) ⇒ q Essentially, to show that this statement is always true (a tautology), we must show that if all of p 1 through p n are true, then q must be true as well. Another way to look at this is that we must show that if q is ever false, then at least ONE of p 1 through p n must be false as well. (This is the contrapositive of the original assertion.) Let’s look at an example of how you might go about proving a statement in a general form, given some extra information. Let p, q, are r be the following statements: p: Sam Madison returns an interception a touchdown. q: The Dolphins rush for under 100 yards. r: The Dolphins will beat the Jaguars. Let the premises be the following: p 1 : If the Dolphins rush for over 100 yards, then Sam Madison will return an interception for a touchdown. p 2 : If Sam Madison returns an interception for a touchdown, the Dolphins will beat the Jaguars. p 3 : The Dolphins did rush for over 100 yards against the Jaguars. Now, I want to show that (p 1 ∧ p 2 ∧ p 3 ) ⇒ r First, I must express p 1 , p 2 , and p 3 in terms of p, q, and r....
View
Full
Document
This document was uploaded on 07/14/2011.
 Spring '09

Click to edit the document details