# If a set $S$ is inconsistent, does $S\vdash \alpha$ for all $\alpha$ in this system?

Let $S$ be an inconsistent set of propositional formulas.

If our system consists of the axioms:

\begin{align} AX1&\quad (P\implies (Q \implies P))\\ AX2&\quad (((P\implies(Q\implies R))\implies((P\implies Q)\implies(P\implies R)))\\ AX3&\quad ((\neg P\implies \neg Q)\implies((\neg P \implies Q) \implies P)) \end{align}

And the only inference rule is modus ponens, does $S\vdash \alpha\, \forall \,\alpha$?

I've been trying to construct a proof for $\alpha$ given $\Gamma \vdash \gamma, \neg \gamma$ for half an hour and couldn't get anywhere, maybe there's a simple combination of axiom application which works and I'm just not seeing it.

E: Following Noah's advice, I got this

\begin{align} 1.&\gamma &\text{Hyp}\\ 2.&\neg \gamma &\text{Hyp}\\ 3.&(\gamma\implies(\neg\alpha\implies \gamma))&\text{AX1}\\ 4.&(\neg\alpha\implies\gamma)&\text{MP (1,3)}\\ 5.&(\neg \gamma \implies (\neg \alpha \implies \neg \gamma))&\text{AX1}\\ 6.&(\neg \alpha \implies \neg \gamma)&\text{MP(2,5)}\\ 7.&((\neg \alpha \implies\neg \gamma) \implies ((\neg \alpha \implies \gamma)\implies \alpha))&\text{AX3}\\ 8.&((\neg \alpha \implies \gamma) \implies \alpha)) &\text{MP(6,7)}\\ 9.& \alpha.&\text{MP(4,8)}\\ \end{align}

• I'm not sure how to formalize this, but I think a good idea is to take $P=\alpha,Q=\gamma$ and make use of AX3. – Wojowu Jan 20 '16 at 22:27

## 1 Answer

Here's an informal sketch.

Assume we've proved $A$ and $\neg A$, and fix any proposition $P$. Then we have $$\neg P\implies \neg A,$$ since we have the stronger proposition $\neg A$ (this uses AX1). Similarly, we have $\neg P\implies A$.

So by AX3, we have $P$.

• Thanks! I think I got the proof right, would you mind checking it in my edit? – YoTengoUnLCD Jan 20 '16 at 22:52
• @YoTengoUnLCD Looks good to me! – Noah Schweber Jan 20 '16 at 23:26