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

I'm looking at Wikipedia's article on Intuitionist logic, and I can't figure out how it would prove $(p \rightarrow p)$.

Does it prove $(p \rightarrow p)$? If yes, how?

If no, is there a correct (or reasonable, if there is no "correct") axiomatization of intuitionistic logic available anywhere online?

share|cite|improve this question
As you can see from the answer below, the "standard" derivation, in an Hilbert-style proof system, of $p \rightarrow p$ use only the propositional axioms THEN-1 and THEN-2. They are both intuitionistically available. In classical logic, where $p \rightarrow q$ is equivalent to $\lnot p \lor q$, the tautology $p \rightarrow p$ is equivalent to $\lnot p \lor p$, i.e. to Excluded Middle; this does not work in intuitionistic logic, where the connectives are not interdefinable. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 29 '14 at 11:38
up vote 8 down vote accepted
  1. $p→(p→p)$ (THEN-1)
  2. $p→((p→p)→p)$ (THEN-1)
  3. $(p→((p→p)→p))→((p→(p→p))→(p→p))$ (THEN-2)
  4. $(p→(p→p))→(p→p)$ (MP from lines 2,3)
  5. $(p→p)$ (MP from lines 1,4)
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.