Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with proof
Search options not deleted
user 68166
7
votes
1
answer
224
views
Using logical equivalence to prove PL statements
["ProofGraph"]
proof["ProofNotebook"]
I just fixed the typo in the axiom, yet trying to let it prove that statement:
$$((r ∧ ¬q ∧ ¬p) ∨ (q ∧ ¬(q ∧ ¬(p ∨ r)))) ∧ ¬(p ∧ ¬(q ∧ ¬r))$$
$$\equiv(p ∧ q ∧ … ["ProofGraph"]
proof["ProofNotebook"]
And here is the proof graph:
Any help would be appreciated. …
- 225