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
This note was uploaded on 09/15/2011 for the course PHILOSOPHY 201 taught by Professor Morgan during the Spring '08 term at Rutgers.
 Spring '08
 Morgan

Click to edit the document details