top | item 17163771 (no title) lactau | 7 years ago Sounds like dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma#Use_in_logic discuss order hn newest a-nikolaev|7 years ago Disjunction elimination rule of inference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_elimination (plus, the law of excluded middle that either E or not E holds) thaumasiotes|7 years ago Wow, that rule is stated horribly.You'd get much more value from phrasing it as ((p implies r) and (q implies r)) iff ((p or q) implies r). No need to have a special rule stating that when you also have (p or q), you can resolve all three to just "r" in one step instead of two steps. load replies (2)
a-nikolaev|7 years ago Disjunction elimination rule of inference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_elimination (plus, the law of excluded middle that either E or not E holds) thaumasiotes|7 years ago Wow, that rule is stated horribly.You'd get much more value from phrasing it as ((p implies r) and (q implies r)) iff ((p or q) implies r). No need to have a special rule stating that when you also have (p or q), you can resolve all three to just "r" in one step instead of two steps. load replies (2)
thaumasiotes|7 years ago Wow, that rule is stated horribly.You'd get much more value from phrasing it as ((p implies r) and (q implies r)) iff ((p or q) implies r). No need to have a special rule stating that when you also have (p or q), you can resolve all three to just "r" in one step instead of two steps. load replies (2)
a-nikolaev|7 years ago
thaumasiotes|7 years ago
You'd get much more value from phrasing it as
No need to have a special rule stating that when you also have (p or q), you can resolve all three to just "r" in one step instead of two steps.