Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem

Charlie-Boo wrote:
H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote:

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 can't, and I did.

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

Never did. 

Why are you posting in this subthread, which *is*
about intuitionistic logic? (You DO know that
sometimes subthreads digress from the original topic,
don't you?)


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? 

This seems futile, but ok, I'll bite. Here's an
intuitionistic proof:

1. | P
   |----
2. | P    (rep)
3. P -> P (->I)

Please show, by a "case analysis", that P->P is
intuitionistically valid.

groente
-- Sander
.

Quantcast