Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: "H. J. Sander Bruggink" <bruggink@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:52:38 +0100
Charlie-Boo wrote:
Torkel Franzen wrote:
You mistakenly take the argument to be about classical propositional logic.
So "~(A<->~A) is a propositional calculus wff" is wrong? (I never used the word "classical".)
But you did talk about "truth tables" and "resolution", both of which are proof methods for classical propositional logic, and not intuitionistic propositional logic.
groente -- Sander .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- References:
- Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Dan Christensen
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Barb Knox
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: sradhakr
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Barb Knox
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: sradhakr
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Prev by Date: Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
- Next by Date: Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
- Previous by thread: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Next by thread: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Index(es):
Loading