query: Fitch Format Proof, Rules of Inference
positive_passages.docid: 144396
positive_passages.text: fitch style proof problem regarding rule of inferences
negative_passages.docid: 150451
negative_passages.text: Logic soundness and completeness
negative_passages.docid: 135267
negative_passages.text: Predicate Logic and Inference
negative_passages.docid: 35630
negative_passages.text: Proof for formal languages
negative_passages.docid: 31299
negative_passages.text: Using the Fitch system, how do I prove $((p \implies q) \implies p)\implies p$?
negative_passages.docid: 29629
negative_passages.text: Distinguishing between valid and fallacious arguments (propositional calculus)
negative_passages.docid: 111862
negative_passages.text: Proof for sequent (Logic)
negative_passages.docid: 108292
negative_passages.text: Precedence between implication and bi-implication
negative_passages.docid: 28281
negative_passages.text: Different standards for writing down logical quantifiers in a formal way
negative_passages.docid: 149643
negative_passages.text: Stuck on validation of argument using rules of inference
negative_passages.docid: 136577
negative_passages.text: In formal logic, how is it possible for an argument with a contradictory conclusion to be valid?
negative_passages.docid: 145447
negative_passages.text: bilinear form - proof
negative_passages.docid: 91861
negative_passages.text: Propositional Logic: p → q, ¬p → r, ¬q → ¬r ⊢ q
negative_passages.docid: 32027
negative_passages.text: Given (p ∧ q), use the Fitch system to prove (q ∨ r)
negative_passages.docid: 158016
negative_passages.text: Help understanding predicate logic question/proof
negative_passages.docid: 147556
negative_passages.text: Express logic puzzles with proposition calculus notation
negative_passages.docid: 143248
negative_passages.text: What approach should I take to establish this logical proof?