# Language Proof and Logic(Philosophy)

posted by .

exercise 5.8
write an informal proof of
Premises: LeftOf(a,b) | RightOf(a,b)
BackOf(a,b) | ~Leftof(a,b)
FrontOf(b,a) | ~RightOf(a,b)
SameCol(c,a) & SameRow(c,b)
conclusion BackOf(a,b)
State if you use proof by cases.

• Language Proof and Logic(Philosophy) -

We want to show that if we make the premises of the argument true, the conclusion must be true. In holding
premise

• Language Proof and Logic(Philosophy) -

The first premiss tells us that a is either to the left of b or to the right of b. Letâ€™s
consider each of these possibilities in turn.
1. Assume that a is to the left of b. Then, from the second premise, a must be back
of b, which is the conclusion.
2. Assume that a is to the right of b. Then, from the third premise, b must be front
of a. This is equivalent to saying that a is back of b, which is the conclusion.
Either way, then, the conclusion follows from the premises.

## Similar Questions

1. ### Logic- Formal Proof

I need to solve a proof and I cannot figure it out. The instructions say only that I will have to use subproofs within subproofs. Premises: A or B A or C Conclusion: A or (B and C)
2. ### Math

Please help me with this problem: A bourbon that is 51 proof is 25.5% alcohol by volume while one that is 82 proof is 41% alcohol. How many liters of 51 proof bourbon must be mixed with 1.0 L of 82 proof bourbon to produce a 66 proof …
3. ### Philosophy

I need help with this proof for my philosophy class. This proof is supposed to be done via indirect proof or conditional proof, so it is supposed to use AIP and IP or ACP and CP to derive the conclusion! This is an assignment that …
4. ### Philosophy

I need help with this proof for my philosophy class. This proof is supposed to be done via indirect proof or conditional proof, so it is supposed to use AIP and IP or ACP and CP to derive the conclusion! This is an assignment that …
5. ### Philosophy

I need help with this proof for my philosophy class. This proof is supposed to be done via conditional proof, so it is supposed to use ACP and CP to derive the conclusion! This is an assignment that is submitted through Aplia, so I …
6. ### Philosophy

I need help with this proof for my philosophy class. This proof is supposed to be done via indirect proof or conditional proof, so it is supposed to use AIP and IP or ACP and CP to derive the conclusion! This is an assignment that …
7. ### Logic

Given the premises (p ⇒ q) and (r ⇒ s), use Propositional Resolution to prove the conclusion (p ∨ r ⇒ q ∨ s). Proof takes 8 steps including the premises and the goal.
8. ### informal Logic

God must exist for there can be no other explanation for the order and complexity of the world. Some say there is no proof, but to me the proof is all around us. The conclusion of this argument is:
9. ### informal Logic

God must exist for there can be no other explanation for the order and complexity of the world. Some say there is no proof, but to me the proof is all around us. The conclusion of this argument is: (Points : 1) God exists There is …
10. ### Philosophy

exercise 5.8 write an informal proof of Premises: LeftOf(a,b) | RightOf(a,b) BackOf(a,b) | ~Leftof(a,b) FrontOf(b,a) | ~RightOf(a,b) SameCol(c,a) & SameRow(c,b) conclusion BackOf(a,b) State if you use proof by cases.

More Similar Questions