MHB Proving p<=>~p: Two Contradictory and Identical Proofs Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs
solakis1
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
CANNOT FIGURE THIS OUT:

proof No1

1. p<=>~p.........assumption

2. (p<=>~p)<=>[(p=>~p)^(~p=>p)]......definition of (1)

3. (p<=>~p)=>[(p=>~p)^(~p=>p)].....2,and Biconditional Elimination

4. (p=>~p)^(~p=>p).........1,3 M.Ponens

5. (~p=>p)............4, Simplification

6. (p=>~p)............4,and using Simplification

7. ~~pvp............5, material implication

8. ~pv~p............6, material implication

9. pvp.............7. negation elimination

10. ~p.............8, idempontent law

11. p.............9, idempontent law

12. ~p^p............10,11 and Conjunctionproof No 2

1. p<=>~p.........assumption

2. (p<=>~p)<=>[(p=>~p)^(~p=>p)]......definition of (1)

3. (p<=>~p)=>[(p=>~p)^(~p=>p)].....2, Biconditional Elimination

4. (p=>~p)^(~p=>p).........1,3 M.Ponens

5. p=>p............4, hypothetical Syllogism

6. ~pvp............5, material implication

In the 1st proof we ended up with a contradiction ,while in the 2nd proof with an identity
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's define a formula $A$ to be stronger than a formula $B$ (or $B$ weaker than $A$) if $A\to B$ is a tautology, or, equivalently, $A\vdash B$. Then $\bot$ (the contradiction) is the strongest formula because $\bot\to B$ is true for any $B$. Conversely, $\top$ (the tautology) is the weakest formula because $A\to\top$ is true for any $A$. Derivation 2 shows that $p\leftrightarrow\neg p\vdash\top$, but this is obvious since every formula is stronger than $\top$. Derivation 1 shows that $p\leftrightarrow\neg p\vdash\bot$, which shows that $p\leftrightarrow\neg p$ is at least as strong as $\bot$ and, therefore, is equivalent to $\bot$.
 
Or, put another way, your assumption is a self-contradiction. Since you can prove anything whatsoever from a contradiction, it's not surprising that you got two such widely different results from a contradiction.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
because $A\to\top$ is true for any $A$

So how are you going to prove that any formula A logically implies M.PONENS for e.g

I mean syntactically not semantically ,like you did.

And then generally that any formula A logically implies any identity B
 
Ackbach said:
Or, put another way, your assumption is a self-contradiction. .

I was trying to prove that syntactically
 
solakis said:
So how are you going to prove that any formula A logically implies M.PONENS for e.g
I am not sure what you mean by "formula A logically implies M.PONENS". Modus Ponens is an inference rule, but only formulas can be logically implied.

solakis said:
And then generally that any formula A logically implies any identity B
I am not sure what you mean by "identity". If you mean tautology, then it is logically implied by definition. We say that $A$ logically implies $B$, written as $A\models B$, if $B$ is true in every interpretation in which $A$ is true. If you mean that $A$ derives $B$, written $A\vdash B$, for any tautology $B$ and any formula $A$, then this is the content of the completeness theorem (which shows $\vdash B$ for any tautology $B$).
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top