To prove ((Ǝx) F(x) → (Ǝx) G(x)) using conditional proof, start with the premises: ((Ǝx) F(x) → (∀z) H(z)) and H(a) → G(b). The discussion suggests that a formal proof in logical calculus may be necessary for clarity. A reference link is provided for additional guidance on formal proofs. Understanding the relationship between existential and universal quantifiers is crucial in this context.
#1
lize
1
0
Hi, I don't know how to prove ((Ǝx) F(x) →(Ǝx) (G(x)) with conditional proof from:
((Ǝx) F(x) → (∀z) H(z))
H(a) →G(b)
What kind of proof do you have in mind? If you are talking about a formal proof in some logical calculus, then please see https://driven2services.com/staging/mh/index.php?threads/29/.
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions).
In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem.
My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ?
Thanks.