Ok so I have to prove the following sequent:
(p -> r) ^ (q -> r) |- p ^ q -> r
I understand why that is clearly correct and I also understand the rules of natural deduction. What I don't understand is how I go about proving it. Here is the model answer provided:
1. (p -> r) ^ (q -> r) |- p ^ q -> r premise
2. p ^ q assumption
3. p ^e 2
4. p -> r ^e 1
5. r ->e 4,3
6. p ^ q -> r ->i 2,5
(e = elimination / i = introduction).
Could someone provide me with a link or a 'dumbed-down' explanation? I feel like I am missing a simple concept that is causing this to be hard to understand... ?
For example, on line 4, why does it require the p from line 3 to remove the ->, where as in line 3, you can remove the ^ q without using a q?
I am sure this is quite straight forward but it doesn't seem to make sense to me... ?
Adam