Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem

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

New Question: Just curious - is there even a wff such that you can
prove it to be intuitionistically valid but I can't prove the wff
using case analysis?
No, there isn't. 

Sorry, I read the question as: "is there even a wff such that
you can prove it to be intuitionistically valid but I can't
prove the wff *to be classically valid* using case analysis?

Now, I see the question really is the same as the previous
question, so the answer should be:

  "Yes, *any* intuitionistically valid wff."

groente
-- Sander
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
    ... > H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote: ... >>> prove it to be intuitionistically valid but I can't prove the wff ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
    ... >> H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote: ... >>>intuitionistically valid. ... >> calculus wff that can be proven using the various rules of inference. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
    ... Charlie-Boo says... ... Just curious - is there even a wff such that you can ... >prove it to be intuitionistically valid but I can't prove the wff ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... > Charlie-Boo says... ... >>prove it to be intuitionistically valid but I can't prove the wff ...
    (sci.logic)