Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem

H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote:
> 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?

That's it. No problem.

C-B

> groente
> -- Sander

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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
    ... H. J. Sander Bruggink wrote: ... prove it to be intuitionistically valid but I can't prove the wff using case analysis? ...
    (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
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... > Charlie-Boo says... ... >>prove it to be intuitionistically valid but I can't prove the wff ...
    (sci.logic)