Topics Logic

Question I would like to know if this can be proven I am attempting to prove G with these premises: 1. (-K and -N) > [(-P>K) and (-R>G)] 2. K>N 3. -N and B 4. -P v -R I am not sure if the premises are enough to allow the solver to prove the solution or if there should be additional premises. A response would be appreciated!

Accepted:
April 18, 2016

Comments

Since "-N" is true (3), then

Since "-N" is true (3), then from (2), you can infer that "-K" is true. So you know that "-K and -N" is true. Hence from premise (1) you can infer that "(-P > K) and (-R > G)" is true. Hence "-P > K" is true. Since you already showed that "-K" is true, it follows that "P" is true. But if "P" is true then it will follow from premise (4) that "-R" is true. Since you've already shown that "-R > G" is true, you can conclude that "G" is true.

If you know what natural deductions are, you might find an online natural deduction proof checker and reconstruct the derivation in that.