A rule of interferance from propositional logic. CP for short.

If you have an argument with the conclusion in the form of a implication (logical operator, not rule of implication), you can assume the antecedent, and using that try to deduce the consequent. For example:

Therefore N>(O*P)

Assume N. (this is called aceptance of conditional proof(ACP))
Use Modus Ponens to derive O and P from the first two statements. Conjoin them with conjunction. You now have showen that if you have N, you have O*P.

See also:: Everything Logic Symbols, Disjuctive Syllogism, Double Negation, Tautology, DeMorgan's Rule, Modus Ponens, Hypothetical Syllogism, Constructive Dilemma, Conjunction, Commutativity,

Here's the whole thing...

1. F>E
2. (F*E)>R // F>R
| 3. F ACP
| 4. E MP 1,3
| 5. F*E Conj 3,4
| 6. R MP 2,5
7. F>R CP 3-6.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.