In the example at 1:01:15, since both are replacement rules, can we use simp or com partially, meaning that not applying to main operator but others, just as we did in double negation? In another word, is it okay to do the following? - ... 4. S v ( !J . I ) 1 com 5. S v !J 4 simp and the rest is the same.
a similar question would follow in the last example 1:26:52, I'm not sure it is okay to do so - ... 3. ( N . M ) v ( O . P ) 1 com 4. N v ( O . P ) 3 simp 5. N v O 4 simp 6. !P 2, 5 MP 7. N v ( P . O ) 4 com 8. N v P 7 simp 9. P v N 8 com 10. N 6, 9 DS
For 1:03:00, I got it using DD because I transposed ~J > ~Q. Is that still correct?
In the example at 1:01:15, since both are replacement rules, can we use simp or com partially, meaning that not applying to main operator but others, just as we did in double negation?
In another word, is it okay to do the following?
-
...
4. S v ( !J . I ) 1 com
5. S v !J 4 simp
and the rest is the same.
a similar question would follow in the last example 1:26:52, I'm not sure it is okay to do so
-
...
3. ( N . M ) v ( O . P ) 1 com
4. N v ( O . P ) 3 simp
5. N v O 4 simp
6. !P 2, 5 MP
7. N v ( P . O ) 4 com
8. N v P 7 simp
9. P v N 8 com
10. N 6, 9 DS
Thank you so much!
Thank you sir
Thank you so much!