0
$\begingroup$

I need some help proving $$\neg(p \to q)\vdash p \wedge \neg q$$ using natural deduction.

So far I've tried using the Law of excluded middle ($p \lor \neg p$). With this approach, I can complete the first half but have no clue how to finish the rest.

The solution can make use of and, or, not, implies introduction/elimination and the law of excluded middle.

Any idea or help is appreciated!

  • 0
    I don't know the exact inference rules you are allowed to work with, but if you were able to get $p$ using $p \lor \neg p$, you should be able to get $\neg q$ from $q \lor \neg q$ – 2017-01-28
  • 0
    What is $\vdash$? – 2017-01-28
  • 0
    In this context I use it with the meaning: the right-hand side is provable from the left-hand side – 2017-01-28
  • 0
    If you can use LEM, then break the proof into 4 cases, of $p$, $q$ being true / false. Then stitch the cases together with Or-Elimination. – 2017-01-28

1 Answers 1

2

Hint:

first prove that $$\neg p\vdash p\rightarrow q$$ and $$ q\vdash p\rightarrow q.$$

From here it must be easy to show that $$\neg(p \to q)\vdash p$$ and $$\neg(p \to q)\vdash \neg q.$$

Then the result follows from $\wedge I$.

To prove $\neg p\vdash p\rightarrow q$, assuming $\neg p$ we have to deduce $p \rightarrow q$. assuming $p$ and using $\neg E$ we get $\bot$, and from there using $\bot$ law, we can deduce $q$, and then deduce $p\rightarrow q$ by $\rightarrow I$ and discharge the assumption $p$. The proof is complete.

  • 0
    Thank you for the hint. However, this is exactly where I ran out of ideas ($\neg p \vdash p \to q $) – 2017-01-28
  • 0
    I'll edit the answer. – 2017-01-28
  • 0
    Thanks. I now see that the solution is very straightforward. I am using some software to do these proofs and it has some constraints, but I've been able to eventually work around them. – 2017-01-28