10:03:23	 From  Alexander Varga : yep, hello
10:04:01	 From  Matan Gans : ^ the ultimate confirmation of identity
10:06:53	 From  Monica Roy : we still need rules for or?
10:07:03	 From  mia : xor :-0
10:07:11	 From  Christopher Wolfram : VI and VE, also ~I and ~E
10:08:18	 From  Christopher Wolfram : If we have A, then we conclude A v B (and another symmetric rule for B)
10:09:15	 From  Christopher Wolfram : If we have A v B, prove that assuming A we can prove C, and assuming B we prove C, then conclude C
10:09:42	 From  Daniel Kostovetsky : A v B, ~A => B
10:10:20	 From  Spencer Dellenbaugh : A->C, B->C
10:13:51	 From  Christopher Wolfram : Maybe reductio ad absurdum?
10:14:28	 From  Christopher Wolfram : So if you assume X and conclude falsum, then you get ~X
10:15:44	 From  Christopher Wolfram : How would we prove A from ~~A?
10:20:42	 From  Daniel Kostovetsky : =>E
10:21:07	 From  Nicholas Keirstead : Sorry what’s the diff between q and Q?
10:23:01	 From  Christopher Wolfram : Is this the notation we are going to use moving forward (for natural deduction proofs)?
10:27:38	 From  Christopher Wolfram : ~A => false
10:27:45	 From  Daniel Kostovetsky : ~~A
10:27:54	 From  Christopher Wolfram : ^ too
10:29:17	 From  Christopher Wolfram : no
10:29:44	 From  Christopher Wolfram : At least not directly
10:30:06	 From  Christopher Wolfram : Is this the law of excluded middle?
10:31:36	 From  Matteo Lunghi : Can we find a collection of all these rules somewhere?
10:38:15	 From  Alexander Varga : can you click Fit?
10:40:14	 From  Christopher Wolfram : Use VE with AVB
10:42:20	 From  Daniel Kostovetsky : AvB
10:43:48	 From  Thomas Del Vecchio : Don’t we want to introduce and not or?
10:44:33	 From  Mary Loukidi-Papanikoli : A, C
10:44:33	 From  Monica Roy : A and C
10:44:33	 From  mia : si! C
10:44:57	 From  Thomas Del Vecchio : Ohh I misinterpreted the or elimination box oops
10:47:41	 From  Matteo Lunghi : In general, is comparing truth tables not considered a “proof”?