Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:11:36 +0200
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:33:57 -0000, translogi
<wilemien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I see. Though you know that the symmetry of I and E rules is broken
The only shortcomings (as i see them) are the ~E rule
(It is anti-intuitionistic, Why not have a bit more proper ~~E rule?
At least smart students will grasp there is something wrong with ~E )
for '~' if we do not use the logical primitive '_|_' (for "the
false statement") like Gentzen did. (That's a difficulty ALL those
systems have to deal with.)
Yes. Same with me. Actually, I like Lemmon's simple notation (which
And the way you say that an assumption is decharged [...]
is just straightforward).
Sure.
But these are minor points
Nope. I don't think so. IMHO it's rather a very bad idea. :-(
The use of DS (disjunctive syllogism) instead of vE is a good thing,
It breaks the symmetry of Gentzen's original rules of derivation
without necessity (this time for 'v').
Well, it's no problem to use DS as a _derived_ rule in, say,
it brings logic back to the Stoic undemonstratebles that also has
DS.
Lemmon's system.
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- From: translogi
- Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- References:
- Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- From: translogi
- Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- From: translogi
- Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- Prev by Date: Re: Formalizing the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Next by Date: Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- Previous by thread: Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- Next by thread: Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|