19 questions linked to/from What is the correct reading of $\bot$?
2k views

### Give a proof that “p & ~p” implies “q”?

Context: This is not a textbook or homework problem. I was hoping you younger folks could help my tired old brain. "Everybody knows" a contradiction implies anything. What I'm looking for is a ...
3k views

### Use Fitch system to proof ((p ⇒ q) ⇒ p) ⇒ p without any premise. ONLY FOR FITCH SYSTEM.

I know here has few similar questions, but I cannot figure out with those answer. Since for Fitch system, I can only use And Intro, And Elim, Or Inro, Or Elim, Neg Intro, Neg Elim, Impl Intro, Impl ...
1k views

### How to prove consistency of Natural Deduction systems

In Dag Prawitz, Natural Deduction A Proof-Theoretical Study (1965), we have the system I of intuitionistic (first-order) logic based on eleven introduction- and elimination-rules : the 3 couples for ...
664 views

### How is the law of excluded middle necessary for proofs by contradiction?

It is claimed that the law of excluded middle : $A \lor \neg A$, is a necessary principle for proving statements by contradiction (i.e. non constructively). However, in first order logic, at least, ...
577 views

### Intuitionistic Logic: introduction and elimination rules for the universal and existential quantifiers

Are the natural deduction introduction and elimination rules for the universal and existential quantifiers in Intuitionistic Logic the same as those for Classical Logic?
58 views

### Why are constants considered $0$-arity functions in logic?

I always come across this idea. It seems that constants can be considered nullary/$0$-arity functions. What is the intuition behind that?
294 views

### Natural Deduction rules for $\lnot$ in classical and intuitionstic logic

Following the very useful answer by Peter Smith to my prevoius post , I'm still reflecting about the "imperfection" connected with the Intro- ans Elim-rules for $\lnot$ in Natural Deduction (I mean ...
348 views

### What is the purpose of defining the negation of a proposition A as A $\rightarrow \bot$?

I know that this definition is unrelated to the law of the excluded middle, but as a beginner in logic (I've studied the first half of Chiswell and Hodges' Mathematical Logic), the use of the name '...
I am given the following definition of L-formulas: "Positive formulas are defined with the following properties: (i) Every atomic formula is positive. (ii) If $\phi,\psi$ are positive that $\phi\... 2answers 127 views ### Proof by Contradiction with Multiple Axioms Looking at proofs by contradiction and it seems I've run into something that does not sit well with me. I am fine with the law of the excluded middle (thus not an intuitionist) and more fundamentally ... 2answers 90 views ### Proof, is$\lnot p \land \lnot q \vdash p \iff q$? I have derived the proof to some extent, mentioned below:-$$\begin{array}{rll} 1. &\lnot p \land \lnot q &\text{Premise} \\ 2. &\lnot p &\land\text{elim}... 2answers 141 views ### Falsehood in a calculus of natural deduction How does the introduction rule and the elimination rule of falsehood ⊥ look like in a calculus of natural deduction? 1answer 140 views ### Is this the reasoning behind$\bot\vdash B$(rule of explosion)? Assuming that a$\bot$indicates we have two contradictory statements$A$and$\neg A$, according to wikipedia this can be the reasoning behind$\bot\vdash B$: since$A$is true, "$A$or$B$" is also ... 1answer 178 views ### Why do people say RAA(Reductio Ad Absurdum) is the same as$(\bot E)$?$(\bot E)$is$\bot\vdash\psi$. RAA(Reductio Ad Absurdum) says If$\{\Gamma,\neg\psi\}\vdash\bot$, then$\{\Gamma\}\vdash\psi$. Yet, one of the solutions to my textbook exercises uses$(\bot E)...
This is a purely terminological (and tedious) question. Given a language of first-order logic that includes the truth constant $\bot$ (falsehood), is this constant considered as an atomic formula or ...