Why or why not given the knowledge of change quantifier rule


Problem

Is this argument provable? ~(x)Fx / ~(∃x)Fx (or in logico-ordinary language: It's not true that everything is an F. Therefore, nothing is an F). Explain why or why not, given the knowledge of change the quantifier rule and conditional/indirect proofs rules.

Request for Solution File

Ask an Expert for Answer!!
Other Subject: Why or why not given the knowledge of change quantifier rule
Reference No:- TGS03348954

Expected delivery within 24 Hours