Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)

On Nov 1, 8:40 am, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Two Laws of Logic Books

1. There are always, ALWAYS, typos/thinkos

2. Publishers don't want to keep reprinting revised versions (because
there are always more little glitches to be found: you've just got to
call a stop).

If it really is the case that

The ONLY thing that is missing is the
_crucial_ information that 'A -> B' means '~A v B' (where A, B are
wffs).

which is something known to any first-year student, i.e. anyone who is
likely to be tackling Nagel&Newman, then I put that down to a trivial
oversight, and not fuss!

Is a truth-table for that statement that shows it to be true in all
combinations of T and F for p and q considered to be a valid
proof of its truth?

.

Loading