Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider the following axiom:

$$\lnot a \implies a$$

Intuitively, this seems like a contradiction. But all implications hold if the LHS is false. Does this mean that:


is a valid conclusion? Or is there a contradiction in the axiom?

share|cite|improve this question
Suppose $\neg a$. Then as $\neg a \to a$, by modus ponens, $a$ holds, a contradiction. Therefore $a$. – martini Jun 5 '12 at 14:32
The alternative wasn't $\lnot a$, but a contradiction in the axiom system. (But maybe an axiom can't contradict itself?) – Johan Jun 5 '12 at 14:34
If you take $\neg a \to a$ as an axiom, you take it as true. It is possible for an axiom to be contradictory, IIRC, but then all formulae are valid conclusions. (Your's isn't and $a$ is a valid conclusion). – martini Jun 5 '12 at 14:36
up vote 2 down vote accepted

This is a tautology, and since there is only one free variable, it is easy to check.

However, you can simplify the expression symbolically before. $\lnot a \implies a$ is logically equivalent to $\lnot(\lnot a)\lor a$, which is $a$. Hence your formula is just $a \implies a$, which is more obviously a tautology.

share|cite|improve this answer
It is only "obviously" a tautology if we already know $\neg \neg a \Leftrightarrow a$. On the other hand, if we start from intuitionistic logic, then ($(\neg a \Rightarrow a) \Rightarrow a)$ for all $a$) is logically equivalent to ($\neg\neg a \Leftrightarrow a$ for all $a$). Either is a possible axiom that can be added to intuitionistic logic on order to make it classical. – Henning Makholm Jun 5 '12 at 14:55
@HenningMakholm I agree with you, and I am myself a constructivist militant. This was a classical “obviously” ;) – Lierre Jun 5 '12 at 19:15

$a \implies b$ is equivalent to $\neg a \vee b$ so $\neg x \implies x$ implies $\neg \neg x \vee x$ which, unless we are working with constructive logic, implies $x$. This means that $(\neg x \implies x) \implies x$ is an axiom. $\neg x \implies x$, however, is not. Just take $x = 0$ and see that $1 \implies 0$ is false.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.