I was reading the following proof and am having trouble following the propositional logic underpinning the proof:
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~cheung/Courses/323/Syllabus/Graph/DAG.html
To simplify, it looks to me like the propositional logic is as follows:
Prove (P IFF Q)
1. Prove (if P, then Q)
a. (if P, then Q) = (~P or Q).
b. Prove (~P or Q) by contradiction: Assume ~(~P or Q) is true, i.e. assume (P and ~Q) is true.
c. Assuming ~Q contradicts P, therefore Q must be true.
1.c. is the step which I don't understand.
In the DAG proof, the author simply claims that assuming ~Q contradicts a given P. But where was P given? This proof doesn't proceed by assuming P and showing Q logically follows, so I don't know how the author makes the claim that P must be true thereby creating a contradiction.
Thanks!