[Logic] Proofs and Rules #2

[@philipdsouza7927]

Your missing truth, falsity and negation rules, if anyone needs it...
TRUTH(only has intro) AND FALSITY(only has elimination)
1.⊥
2.A ⊥E,1 (You can assume anything from false)
1.⊤ ⊤I
NEGATION
1.A
2.⊥
3.¬A ¬I1,2
1.A
2.¬A
3.⊥ ¬E1,2

[@CJ-jy9pd]

thank you

[@Pabloeldiablo876]

BIG HELP THANK YOU FOR THESE VIDEOS

[@pascal1888-]

this is brilliant!!!

[@robertwalter50]

Thanks for the videos helped me alot, good job

[@CASE-vc3fm]

Quick question is RAA same as Negation introduction? That's what they're teaching us.

[@Trevtutor]

+Xero Gray Yes.

[@Emre.-_-]

thanks a lot!

[@renunciant]

Its not an acronym is the sound a make when I prove someone is absurdly wrong RAAAAAHAHAHAHAH

[@sphemazeka5432]

so when are you allowed to assume or what happens that leads us to end up assuming a particular premise

[@DaFreed123]

Why don't you also have to show assuming "not A" and "not C" in the last proof?

[@Zephyr-tg9hu]

To anyone else watching this recently: A biconditional is still true if both the antecedent and the consequent are false. It is a rule of TFL, so there is no need to prove this.

[@bonbonpony]

04:23 And there's no loo around :)

[@Xerdoz]

Mathematics fucking sucks.