Symbolic logic! construct an annotated derivation for the arguement :?

Question

construct an annotated derivation for the arguement :
1. (P@Q)@R
2. (S@Q)>T
3. ~T
therefor 4. P@R

Answer 1

4. P@Q (1, simplification)
5. R (1, simplification)
6. P (4, simplification)
7. Q (4, simplification)
8. ~(S@Q) (2, modus tollens)
9. ~S v ~Q (8, DeMorgan's Law)
10. ~~Q (7, Double Negation)
11. ~S (9, 10, Disjunctive Syllogism)

12. P@R (6, 5, Conjunction)

[Note; are you sure you wrote the question down correctly? We didn't seem to require #2 or #3 for the conclusion.

Answer 2

i'd be satisfied to help, yet please make sparkling what you propose by technique of your symbols ~ = no longer (i assume) @ = and (?) > = implies (?) < = or(?) the surprising one is the single perplexing me the most. also, are there any axioms to coach this from, or merely coach this from the the same old tautologies?

Answer 3

I don't understand your notation. What'2 @? And? Or??

Ana