In order to work along with the lectures, you'll find it useful to check out John Halpin's Logic Café: thelogiccafe.net/PLI/. This week we're working with Chapter Eight again.
Hey Jack, question about 7:20 if reiteration is NOT necessary for going from subderivation to main derivations as weve seen before by just mentioning the line number + rule of inference/equillivence. And now NEITHER used for composing a proposition with itself (either P->P, PVP, P⊕P or any other connective)... Than doen't that render it absolete? Didn't Halpin actually did *right* in asking to do it, for making a use out of an inference rule never been able to be used by John before in any lecture, but indeed mentioned? Regardless of having other ways (shorter or longer ones) to do the same?
In order to work along with the lectures, you'll find it useful to check out John Halpin's Logic Café: thelogiccafe.net/PLI/. This week we're working with Chapter Eight again.
Hey Jack, question about 7:20
if reiteration is NOT necessary for going from subderivation to main derivations as weve seen before by just mentioning the line number + rule of inference/equillivence.
And now NEITHER used for composing a proposition with itself (either P->P, PVP, P⊕P or any other connective)...
Than doen't that render it absolete? Didn't Halpin actually did *right* in asking to do it, for making a use out of an inference rule never been able to be used by John before in any lecture, but indeed mentioned? Regardless of having other ways (shorter or longer ones) to do the same?
This ones really hard..