Question 2: Consider the following premises: 1. A - (B - A) is a Theorem of Propositional Calculus/Logic (i.e. it's logically valid), for all statement forms A and B. 2. Suppose then that the following are the temporary axioms (assumptions): a) W (axiom 1) b) Y (axiom 2) c) Y - Z (axiom 3) Using the logical rules of inference, Modus Ponens (MP) and/or Hypothetical Syllogism (HS), show that X - Z is deducible (i.e. it is a logical/valid conclusion) from the given premises (i.e. 1 and 2).

Question 2: Consider the following premises: 1. A - (B - A) is a Theorem of Propositional Calculus/Logic (i.e. it's logically valid), for all statement forms A and B. 2. Suppose then that the following are the temporary axioms (assumptions): a) W (axiom 1) b) Y (axiom 2) c) Y - Z (axiom 3) Using the logical rules of inference, Modus Ponens (MP) and/or Hypothetical Syllogism (HS), show that X - Z is deducible (i.e. it is a logical/valid conclusion) from the given premises (i.e. 1 and 2).

Database System Concepts

7th Edition

ISBN:9780078022159

Author:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Publisher:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Chapter1: Introduction

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1PE

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Let P(x) and Q(x) be relations, with x a variable from a given domain of discourse U. The Axiom of the Hilbert deductive system for first-order logic applied below is "Axiom 1,2,3,4,5" ? ⊢ ∀x P(x) → (∃x Q(x) → ∀x P(x)) Consider the steps given below of a proof in the Hilbert deductive system and determine the reason that justifies each. ∀x A(x) ⊢ ∀x A(x) "?"∀x A(x) ⊢ ∀x A(x) → A(a) " ?"∀x A(x) ⊢ A(a) " ?"
Determine whether these statement forms are logically equivalent. In each case, construct a truth table and include a sentence justifying your answer. Your sentence should show that you understand the meaning of logical equivalence. p ꓥ t and p
Use the laws of propositional logic (logical equivalences) to show the following equivalency by choosing to change one, and only one, side of the equivalence expression. (¬p→q)∨¬q ≡ T
Convert each of the following argu- ments into formal statements, e.g., define sentences existentially and/or universally quantified statements. Then determine which rules of logic have been applied and explain whether or not they have been ap- plied correctly.
Prove that the following compound propositions are logically equivalent by using the laws of propositional logic. You do not need to indicate the name of the law used in each step of the proof. 1. ¬ (? ∨ ?) ∧ (? ∨ ?) and ¬? ∧ ¬? ∧ ?
Simplify the given proposition using Logical Equivalence rules and determine if it is a tautology, contradiction orcontingency. Do not forget to indicate rule/s applied in each step. 1. ¬(q ⊕ p) → ¬(p ∧ q) 2. (¬p ∧ r) ⊕ (p ∨ q)
Does the fact ¬Spouse(George,Laura) follow from the facts Jim≠George and Spouse(Jim,Laura)? If so, give a proof; if not, supply additional axioms as needed. What happens if we use Spouse as a unary function symbol instead of a binary predicate?
Problem 4) Translate the given statement into propositional logic using the propositions provided. (Do not simplify the expressions.) “It is not true that you can go out without a hat only if it is warm and not rainy.” Express your answer in terms ofh: “You can go out without a hat”, w: “It is warm”, andr: “It is rainy”.
Consider the following arguments, in each case determine whether the argument is valid, i.e., is it an instanceof an argument form in deductive logic in which the rule of inference is truth-preserving?(a) 1. p2. (p ∨ s) (b) 1. ¬(r ∨ s)2. ((r ∨ s) ∨ p)3. p (c) 1. (¬r ∨ ¬s)2. ((p ∨ q) → (r ∧ s))3. ¬(p ∨ q) (d) 1. (p → ¬¬p)2. (¬¬¬p ∧ ¬p)3. ¬p4. (¬p ∨ q)
Construct the truth tables for the following and determine whether the compound proposition is a tautology, contradiction, or contingency. [p ∧ (p → q) ] →q
A Kripke structure with the states A, B, C, D, E and the propositional variables P, Q, R is defined by the following diagram: For which states do the following modal logic formulas provide the truth value W (or "true") when evaluated in this structure? P, ¬R, OP, ◊(PA-Q)?
Construct the truth tables for the following and determine whether the compound proposition is a tautology, contradiction, or contingency. p → (q ↔ r)