Skip to main content
Logo image

Section 7.2 An application to logic

By mathematical induction.

Induction step.

Let \(k \ge 3\text{.}\) Consider the \(n = k\) version (below left) and the \(n = k+1\) version (below right) of the Extended Law of Syllogism.
\(p_1 \lgccond p_2\)
\(p_2 \lgccond p_3\)
\(\vdots \phantom{\lgccond p_n}\)
\(p_{k-1} \lgccond p_k\)
\(p_1 \lgccond p_k\)
\(p_1 \lgccond p_2\)
\(p_2 \lgccond p_3\)
\(\vdots\)
\(p_{k-1} \lgccond p_k\)
\(p_k \lgccond p_{k+1}\)
\(p_1 \lgccond p_{k+1}\)
Assume the \(n = k\) version of the argument is valid. We want to show that the \(n = k + 1\) version is also valid. So suppose that premises of that latter version are all true. We need to show that the conclusion \(p_1 \lgccond p_{k+1}\) must then also be true.
But each premise of the \(n = k\) version is also a premise of the \(n = k + 1\) version, so we can say that we have assumed that every premise of the \(n = k\) version is true. But we have also assumed that version to be valid, so we may take its conclusion \(p_1 \lgccond p_k\) to be true.
Consider the following syllogism.
\(p_1 \lgccond p_k\)
\(p_k \lgccond p_{k+1}\)
\(p_1 \lgccond p_{k+1}\)
Since this is valid (base case \(n=2\)) and its premises are all true, the conclusion is true.