2
$\begingroup$

What would be the purpose of proving a mathematics theorem using paraconsistent logic? Is there any reason to do this? What would it achieve and what would it prove? Could we also claim that there are far fewer theorems that can be proven using paraconsistent logic and that the theorems that can proven using paraconsistent logic is a subset of what theorems can be proven using ordinary logic?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1 If nothing else, it shows how clever the writer of the the proof is. They can derive at least a non-empty subset of mathematical theory with one hand tied behind their back. $\endgroup$ – Dan Christensen Dec 28 '20 at 15:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.