Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem

Torkel Franzen wrote:
> "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > You are arguing about the syntax of propositional calculus.
>
> This is a misunderstanding on your part. The argument concerns the
> semantics of constructive logic. The rule of ex falso quodlibet may
> reasonably be held to be constructively problematic; hence the
> relevance of the observation that ~(A<->~A) is provable in minimal
> logic.

~(A<->~A) is a propositional calculus wff, you're talking about proving
it, and all propositional calculus proofs are simply case analysis
(examining a finite set of possiblities), which I believe is completely
implemented by resolution.

Are any of the proofs being discussed not instances of propositional
calculus wffs that can be proven by examining the truth tables (i.e.
case analysis)? These different systems are merely different syntaxes
to represent case analysis.

C-B

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
    ... >> as a valid proof of ~. ... You are arguing about the syntax of propositional calculus. ... It's almost a variant of people attacking the syntax of a proposal ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
    ... > You are arguing about the syntax of propositional calculus. ... This is a misunderstanding on your part. ... semantics of constructive logic. ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading