- #1
gnome
- 1,041
- 1
To do a tableau proof of this statement:
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists x)(P(x) \vee (\exists x)(Q(x)] [/tex]
I started out by restating it as follows:
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists y)(P(y) \vee (\exists z)(Q(z)] [/tex]
to avoid confusion over what's bound to what (and when).
Is my approach:
valid?
invalid?
recommended?
not?
a good idea?
not?
some other adjective (or expletive)?
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists x)(P(x) \vee (\exists x)(Q(x)] [/tex]
I started out by restating it as follows:
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists y)(P(y) \vee (\exists z)(Q(z)] [/tex]
to avoid confusion over what's bound to what (and when).
Is my approach:
valid?
invalid?
recommended?
not?
a good idea?
not?
some other adjective (or expletive)?