Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem

H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote:
> Charlie-Boo wrote:
> > H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote:
>
> >>But you did talk about "truth tables" and "resolution", both
> >>of which are proof methods for classical propositional logic,
> >>and not intuitionistic propositional logic.
> >
> > Please give a proof of a propositional calculus proposition that cannot
> > be done using case analysis (examination of the truth tables.)
>
> Man, just admit that you don't know what intuitionistic logic is.

You can use any logic you want, actually. Please answer the question,
ok?

> You don't mention the word "intuitionistic" in your question
> anymore,

Never did.

> making it ambiguous in the present context.
>
> If I interpret your question as:
>
> "Please give an intuitionistic proof of an
> (intuitionistically valid) propositional calculus
> proposition that cannot be done using case
> analysis."
>
> then the answer would be: *any proof*, because "case analysis"
> doesn't work for intuitionistic logic.

One example will do. What is the propositional calculus wff that you
prove?

> groente
> -- Sander

.