Proof by Cases

Axiom
The rule of or-elimination is one of the axioms of natural deduction.

If we can conclude $p \lor q$, and:
 * $(1): \quad$ By making the assumption $p$, we can conclude $r$
 * $(2): \quad$ By making the assumption $q$, we can conclude $r$

then we may infer $r$.

The conclusion $r$ does not depend upon either assumption $p$ or $q$.

It can be written:
 * $\displaystyle {p \lor q \quad \begin{array}{|c|} \hline p \\ \vdots \\ r \\ \hline \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{|c|} \hline q \\ \vdots \\ r \\ \hline \end{array} \over r} \lor_e$

Sequent Form
The rule of or-elimination is symbolised by the sequent:

Tableau Form
In a tableau proof, the rule of or-elimination can be invoked in the following manner:


 * Abbreviation: $\lor \mathcal E$
 * Deduced from: The pooled assumptions of:
 * $(1): \quad$ The instance of $p \lor q$
 * $(2): \quad$ The instance of $r$ which was derived from the individual assumption $p$
 * $(3): \quad$ The instance of $r$ which was derived from the individual assumption $q$.


 * Discharged Assumptions: The assumptions $p$ and $q$.
 * Depends on: The following three things:
 * $(1): \quad$ The line containing the instance of $p \lor q$
 * $(2): \quad$ The series of lines from where the assumption $p$ was made to where $r$ was deduced
 * $(3): \quad$ The series of lines from where the assumption $q$ was made to where $r$ was deduced.

Explanation
We know $p \lor q$, that is, either $p$ is true or $q$ is true, or both.

Suppose we assume that $p$ is true, and from that assumption we have managed to deduce that $r$ has to be true.

Then suppose we assume that $q$ is true, and from that assumption we have also managed to deduce that $r$ has to be true.

Therefore, it has to follow that the truth of $r$ follows from the fact of the truth of $p \lor q$.

Thus we can eliminate a disjunction from a sequent.

Also known as
This is also known as proof by cases, but this is also used for an extension of this concept.