Logic

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!

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.

Read another response by Alexander George

Read another response about Logic