Proof Using Replacement Rules
This video presents the same text shown beside it, spoken and on screen. It adds nothing the text does not say.
Replacement rules let a statement be rewritten into an equivalent form anywhere it appears, which often opens a route that the implication rules alone would not reach.
Premises: tilde A wedge B, and tilde B. Prove tilde A. First route. Line three: A horseshoe B, from line one by implication, since a disjunction with a negated left side is equivalent to a conditional. Line four: tilde A, from lines three and two by modus tollens — the conditional with its consequent denied yields the antecedent denied. Second route, same premises. Line three: tilde A, from lines one and two by disjunctive syllogism, since denying one disjunct leaves the other standing. One line instead of two, no rewriting needed. Both proofs are complete and both are correct. Replacement rules do not merely permit proofs; they permit choices between them, and the shorter route is not always the one that presents itself first.
Replacement rules work in both directions and on any part of a line, while implication rules run one way and only on whole lines. Rewriting a fragment of a line with an implication rule produces a step that no rule licenses, and the error is quiet because the resulting line often happens to be true.
Builds on
Unlocks
- Nothing yet depends on this.