1. Other
  2. Other
  3. language proof and logic 2nd edition 211 and 213 im...

Question: language proof and logic 2nd edition 211 and 213 im...

Question details
Language Proof and Logic (2nd Edition) 2.11 and 2.13

I’m having trouble with the problems above. If anyone can offer any help ASAP that would be greatly appreciated.
Below is a picture of the questions with instructions from the book:
of Identity) Give an in- 2.6 Give an informal proof that the follow- valid. If you proved the formal proof of the following argument ing argument is using only indiscernibility of identicals. Make sure you say which name is be- ing substituted for which, and in what sentence. transitivity of identity by doing Exer- cise 2.5, you may use this principle; oth- erwise, use only the indiscernibility of identicals. b c a=b SameRow(a, a) a=b SameRow(c, a) 2.7 Consider the following sentences. 1. Mar and Claire are not related. 2. Nancy is Maxs mother. 3. Nancy is not Claires mother. Does (3) follow from (1) and (2)? Does (2) follow from (1) and (3)? Does (1) follow from (2) and (3)? In each case, Du if your answer is no, describe a possible circumstance in which the premises tnd Gien the meanings of the atomic predicates in the blocks language, assess the following arguments for roalidity. (You may again assume any general facts about the worlds that can be built in Tarskis World.) lf the argument is valid, give an informal proof of its validity and turn it in on paper to your instructor lf the conclusion is not a consequence of the premises, submit a world in uhich the premises are true and the conclusion false. 2.9 LeftOf (a, b) 2.10 小 SameSize(b, c) 2.8 Large (a) | Sam eShape(b,c) Larger(a.c) Small(c) RightOf(c, a) 2.13 SameSize a. Larger(a,c) 2.12 oxto RightOf (c, a) cals BackOf (a, b) FrontOf a.c) FrontOf (b, c) Smaller(d, c) Smaller(d, b) LeftOf (b, c) SECTION 2.2
Solution by an expert tutor
Blurred Solution
This question has been solved
Subscribe to see this solution