This preview shows pages 1–2. 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:  ~Q 1,&O (9)   X 7,8,XI (3) ~R > S ; S > T / S v (R v T) (1) ~R > S Pr (2) S > T Pr (3) SHOW: S v (R v T) ID (4) ~[S v (R v T)] As (5) SHOW: X DD (6)  ~S 4,~vO (7)   ~(R v T) 4,~vO (8)   ~R 7,~vO (9)   S 1,8,>O (10)   X 6,9,XI Notice that in this derivation I don't need to use premise 2 at all (though I could use it if I wanted to). (4) / Q > ~ (P & ~Q) [there is no premise, so your first line in a show line in this problem] (1) SHOW: Q> ~(P & ~Q) CD (2)  Q As (3)  SHOW: ~(P & ~Q) ID (4)   P & ~Q As (5)   SHOW: X DD (6)   ~Q 4,&O (7)    X 2,6,XI...
View Full
Document
 Spring '08
 Morgan

Click to edit the document details