proof for relational predicate logic

General Tech Learning Aids/Tools 2 years ago

0 1 0 0 0 tuteeHUB earn credit +10 pts

5 Star Rating 1 Rating

Posted on 16 Aug 2022, this text provides information on Learning Aids/Tools related to General Tech. Please note that while accuracy is prioritized, the data presented might not be entirely correct or up-to-date. This information is offered for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and should not be considered as a substitute for professional advice.

Take Quiz To Earn Credits!

Turn Your Knowledge into Earnings.

tuteehub_quiz

Answers (1)

Post Answer
profilepic.png
manpreet Tuteehub forum best answer Best Answer 2 years ago

 

I have been working on this problem for over an hour and I think I have simply missed something. I need some help. The rules I am allowed to use are the Basic Inference rules (MP, MT, HS, Simp, Conj, DS, Add, CD), the Replacement Rules (DN, Comm, Assoc, Dup, DeM, BE, Contrap, CE, Exp, Dist.), CP, IP, and EI, UI, EG, UG.

The problem is:

  1. ¬(∃x)(Axa ∧ ~Bxb)
  2. ¬(∃x)(Cxc ∧ Cbx)
  3. (∀x)(Bex → Cxf)

/∴ ¬(Aea ∧ Cfc)

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Edit: Fixed the format of the question. The system is quantificational predicate logic. I've never called it anything else.

No matter what stage you're at in your education or career, TuteeHub will help you reach the next level that you're aiming for. Simply,Choose a subject/topic and get started in self-paced practice sessions to improve your knowledge and scores.