From our text SYMLOG

- Page 199: Exercise 5.3.3 (b), (d).
- Page 204:
Exercise 5.4.1 (b). Give reasons for your answer (either a counterexample if it is false, or an informal argument if it is true).

- Page 204: Exercise 5.4.4 (f). Give a SYMLOG printout deriving both \alpha and ¬\alpha for some wff \alpha. [This is the formal way to demonstrate the set is SD-inconsistent.]
- Page 204: Exercise 5.4.5 (d). Give a SYMLOG printout.
- Page 204: Exercise 5.4.6 (b), (j). Give a SYMLOG printout.
- Page 204: Exercise 5.4.7 (h).
- Give two demonstrations that the following arguments are valid:
(a) A -> B (b) ¬ A v B (c) ___________ __________ ________ ¬ B -> ¬ A A -> B A v ¬A

(i) give an SD derivation in symlog

(ii) give an informal argument refering to the truth of the presmise and the conclusion.

[Hint: there should be some similarity between these two arguments. If you can find one, you could try translating to get the essence of a proof of the other type. Of course, there are many different derivations for any valid argument. Some are longer or uglier or harder to figure out.]