We are not restricted in a
derivation to a single assumption. There can be as many as you want or need. In
some cases the assumptions will not be embedded in one another. Here is one
such case. We are showing that ~(P v Q) I- ~P & ~Q.
|
1.
|
~(P v Q)
|
Premise
|
Note that at line 5 and below lines 2 through 4 are inaccessible. The
subderivation has been discharged. Those lines cannot be appealed to at any
later point. Recall that in the builder inaccessible lines are marked off with
an *. Here is another case. We are showing that P & Q I- P -
Q. Generally we will get to biconditionals by obtaining the two conditionals.
In this particular case we will apply &E twice as the initial steps.
|
1.
|
P & Q
|
Premise
|
Typically, though not
invariably, we will obtain a conclusion that is a conjunction by obtaining each
of the conjuncts and applying &I. Here is an example of such a case that
involves making multiple assumptions. We will show that P - ~P, ~(Q v
~R) I- ~P & R
|
1.
|
P - ~P
|
Premise
|
At this point you should:
But assumptions may be
embedded. That is, you may have assumptions within assumptions. Here is one
example where we wish to show that P |- R - (Q - P):
|
1.
|
P
|
Premise
|
Since the sentence that we wish to derive is a conditional we set up a
conditional introduction. But the consequent of that conditional is itself a
conditional so we set up another conditional introduction to obtain it.
|
1.
|
P
|
Premise
|
Notice that since we have a new assumption we must indent further. This
provides a visual means of keeping track of assumptions. Let us move on.
|
1.
|
P
|
Premise
|
Notice that at this point we have terminated one assumption. Note that the *'s
indicate that at line 5 lines 3 and 4 have become inaccessible. It is important
to keep in mind, when working with embedded assumptions, that you can only
terminate the nearest unterminated assumption above. The following is, for
example, a mistake:
|
1.
|
P
|
Premise
|
|
The assumption made at line 2 cannot be terminated until the assumption
immediately below it has been terminated. Here is a correct completed
derivation:
|
1.
|
P
|
Premise
|
You should now:
Let us now look at another
example. We will show that P - ~P, ~(Q v ~R) I- S - (~P & R).
|
1.
|
P - ~P
|
Premise
|
Notice that in completing this derivation we have combined tactics used in
preceding examples. We wished to derive a conditional, so we set up a
conditional introduction. The consequent of this conditional was a conjunction,
so we obtained the conjuncts and then used &I. You should now:
Before continuing to the next tutorial or the exercises let us try one more
derivation. You should now: