15.2k views
3 votes
Give a Fitch-style natural deduction proof of the sentence ∀x(P (x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)) → (∀xP (x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)).

Hint: You will need to use RAA. If it helps, you may assume you already proved ¬∀xP (x) → ∃x¬P (x) (indeed, you proved this in Problem Set 7, problem 6(c)).

User Marpme
by
8.1k points

1 Answer

1 vote

Final answer:

The Fitch-style natural deduction proof involves using Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA) to show that the negation of the conclusion leads to a contradiction, which confirms the original conclusion must be true.

Step-by-step explanation:

The goal is to provide a Fitch-style natural deduction proof for the logical sentence ∀x(P(x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)) → (∀xP(x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)) using Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA). This form of argument involves showing that a negation of the conclusion leads to a contradiction, thus the original conclusion must be true.

To structure the proof, we:
1. Assume the negation of the conclusion (¬(∀xP(x) ∨ ∃yQ(y))) to lead to a contradiction (for RAA).
2. From this assumption, we infer that both ¬∀xP(x) and ¬∃yQ(y) must be true.
3. Using the logical equivalence of ¬∀xP(x) to ∃x¬P(x) (proved in a prior problem set), and because we have assumed ¬∃yQ(y), we have ∃x¬P(x) and ¬∃yQ(y) as our assumptions.
4. We can then use these assumptions to derive a contradiction with the initial premise ∀x(P(x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)) as neither of the disjuncts in the premise can be true under our assumptions.
5. Having reached a contradiction, we can conclude by RAA that ¬(∀xP(x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)) is false and hence ∀x(P(x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)) → (∀xP(x) ∨ ∃yQ(y)) must be true.

User Sushil Adhikari
by
8.6k points
Welcome to QAmmunity.org, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of our community.

9.4m questions

12.2m answers

Categories