Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 21 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

Angie did the following proof in her logic class. Which step in the indirect proof did she do incorrectly? Prove: 8 is divisible by 4. Step 1: Assume that 8 is not divisible by four. Step 2: 8 is divisible by 4 Step 3: 8 is divisible by 4.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

can u help? @perl

OpenStudy (anonymous):

step 2

OpenStudy (anonymous):

you sure? @sourwing

OpenStudy (perl):

when we do indirect reasoning, we assume the negation of what we are trying to prove. so step 1 is correct. step 2 doesn't make sense (we dont assume the negation and the opposite of the negation)

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ok so its step 2 right?

OpenStudy (perl):

i think so

OpenStudy (anonymous):

can u help with a few more?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@perl

OpenStudy (perl):

ok

OpenStudy (anonymous):

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@perl

OpenStudy (perl):

@timo86m im here

OpenStudy (perl):

i somehow landed here

OpenStudy (perl):

number 3 ?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

both please

OpenStudy (anonymous):

step 3 I think because it is a repeat

OpenStudy (anonymous):

no isn't it step 2?

OpenStudy (perl):

the proof is a bit odd actually

OpenStudy (perl):

steps 2 and 3 are repeats , not sure why

OpenStudy (anonymous):

:( typo

OpenStudy (anonymous):

i learned that u state the opposite, then u reason logically, then u conclude the assumption is false

OpenStudy (perl):

ok i think timo is right

OpenStudy (perl):

steps 1,2 taken together or steps 2,3 taken together are both wrong

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so which one is wrong? step 2 or 3?

OpenStudy (perl):

can you upload that question

OpenStudy (anonymous):

yes one second

OpenStudy (anonymous):

OpenStudy (perl):

yeah im going to go with step 2

OpenStudy (perl):

how did she go from assuming 8 is not divisible by 4 , to 8 is divisible by 4 ?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ok any idea on what the answer to question 3 is?

OpenStudy (perl):

we want to prove {p1 & p2 & p3 & p4 & p5} -> conclusion

OpenStudy (anonymous):

?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

okay thanks! do u no anybody that can come and double check the answers?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@perl

OpenStudy (perl):

we want to prove the conditional: {p1 & p2 & p3 & p4 & p5} -> conclusion Now if we 'assume' ~c is true, then at least one of the five statements p1, p2, p3, p4 , p5 must be false. Otherwise if they are all true, then it is possible for all the premises to be true while the conclusion is false (since c is false whenever ~c is true), in which case the original conditional is false. But we are given that the original conditional is true. This forces us to say , at least one of p1,p2,p3,p4,p5 is false . so at most 4 are true

OpenStudy (anonymous):

what were u typing haha @perl

OpenStudy (perl):

oh i was correcting the logic of it

OpenStudy (perl):

writing logically correct statements is tricky

OpenStudy (anonymous):

do u think u can solve one more for me? @perl

OpenStudy (perl):

ok

OpenStudy (anonymous):

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@perl

OpenStudy (perl):

i agree, the logical progression of the statements is inaccurate

OpenStudy (anonymous):

my answer is correct?

OpenStudy (perl):

i think so

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ok thanks!

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!