so don't expect me to behave perfectly

[cimorene]

fuck.

in other news, do any logicians out there know how to prove using the formal natural system that -(M>P) = M&-P ? ::shakes the problem:: godDAMMIT, i need that M! i can't get my contradition without it and i will NEVER prove -I... why can't there be a rule about how you're allowed to stick a truth table in. or a contrapositive rule? yeah, that would be v/ v/ nice.

::whimper::

Comments

[baggers.livejournal.com]

Hi there.

Im going on the > being "if _ then _" (the little hook thingo)

-(M>P) Material implication
-(-MvP) DeMorgans Law
M&-P

Hope this helps and it's not too late. :)

Re:

[cimness.livejournal.com]

sweet of you, but that law doesn't exist in our system; i'm only allowed to use elimination and introduction of conjunction, negation, conditional and biconditional. however, it's not too late, cause it was merely driving me insane as a matter of, um, pride.

Re:

[baggers.livejournal.com]

oh that really sucks.
::thinks about it some more::
i so can not remember that stuff.
I understand the matter of pride. I'm likely to sit here and try to work it out now just to show myself that I can. :) good luck.