This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
Math
Appears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3
2×3
2^{34}
234
a_{i-1}
ai−1
\frac{2}{3}
32
\sqrt{2}
2
\sum_{i=1}^3
∑i=13
\sin \theta
sinθ
\boxed{123}
123
Comments
The statement that you are trying to prove may be thought of as four conditionals (although two are redundant, due to contraposition): if J then J & L; if not J then not (J & L); if J & L then J; and if not (J & L) then not J. The second and third of these are obvious, because of the way & works. The first is also obvious, since if J then L (as given by line two), hence if J then J & L. The last one follows similarly: if not (J & L), then not J or not L (de Morgan), and if not L then not J (contrapositive of line two). Thus, not (J & L) always implies not J.
In a Fitch-style natural deduction proof, the only premise would be that J implies L. Proving the biconditional would simply involve two subproofs of the conditionals. The one showing that L & J implies J would be very short; the one for showing J implies J & L would also be quite short.
I don't know how it would be best tackled in Hilbert's axioms
Your chain of "implies" is going in the wrong direction. You should not see what is implied by what you're trying to prove, or you might end up in a circular argument. (That is, unless they are bi-implies, or biconditionals, but as stated above they are not.)
Careful. A circular argument would require treating the conclusion as a premise. This is not what was done! Note that the conclusion was manipulated in isolation. The point was to show (hint, really) that the second premise and the conclusion are logically equivalent; the first premise is irrelevant. One could also manipulate just the second premise in isolation and show the same thing.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*or_italics_**bold**or__bold__paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)> This is a quote# I indented these lines # 4 spaces, and now they show # up as a code block. print "hello world"\(...\)or\[...\]to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 32^{34}a_{i-1}\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{2}\sum_{i=1}^3\sin \theta\boxed{123}Comments
The statement that you are trying to prove may be thought of as four conditionals (although two are redundant, due to contraposition): if J then J & L; if not J then not (J & L); if J & L then J; and if not (J & L) then not J. The second and third of these are obvious, because of the way & works. The first is also obvious, since if J then L (as given by line two), hence if J then J & L. The last one follows similarly: if not (J & L), then not J or not L (de Morgan), and if not L then not J (contrapositive of line two). Thus, not (J & L) always implies not J.
In a Fitch-style natural deduction proof, the only premise would be that J implies L. Proving the biconditional would simply involve two subproofs of the conditionals. The one showing that L & J implies J would be very short; the one for showing J implies J & L would also be quite short.
I don't know how it would be best tackled in Hilbert's axioms
Note that (L∧J)≡J implies J⇒(L∧J), which implies J⇒L, which is one of the premises. You should be able to fill in the gaps from there.
Log in to reply
Your chain of "implies" is going in the wrong direction. You should not see what is implied by what you're trying to prove, or you might end up in a circular argument. (That is, unless they are bi-implies, or biconditionals, but as stated above they are not.)
Log in to reply
Careful. A circular argument would require treating the conclusion as a premise. This is not what was done! Note that the conclusion was manipulated in isolation. The point was to show (hint, really) that the second premise and the conclusion are logically equivalent; the first premise is irrelevant. One could also manipulate just the second premise in isolation and show the same thing.