Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
, it is enough to add:
• NOT-1': (
ϕ
→
⊥
)
→
¬
ϕ
{\displaystyle (\phi \to
\phi )}
• NOT-2: ϕ
→
(
¬
ϕ
→
χ
)
{\displaystyle \phi \to
(\lnot \phi \to \chi )}
as at Propositional calculus#Axioms. Alternatives to NOT-1 are
(
ϕ
→
¬
χ
)
→
(
χ
→
¬
ϕ
)
{\displaystyle (\phi \to \lnot \chi )\to (\chi \to \lnot \phi )}
or
(
ϕ
→
¬
ϕ
)
→
¬
ϕ
{\displaystyle (\phi \to \lnot \phi )\to \lnot \phi }
.
Equivalence[edit]
The connective
↔
{\displaystyle \leftrightarrow }
• IFF-3:
(
ϕ
→
χ
)
→
(
(
χ
→
ϕ
)
→
(
ϕ
↔
χ
)
)
{\displaystyle (\phi \to \chi )\to ((\chi \to \phi )\to (\phi
using conjunction.
Relation to classical logic[edit]
The system of classical logic is obtained by adding any one of the
following axioms:
a ϕ
∨
¬
ϕ
{\displaystyle \phi \lor \lnot \phi }
(Law of the excluded middle. May also
be formulated as
(
ϕ
→
χ
)
→
(
(
¬
ϕ
→
χ
)
→
χ
)
{\disp
laystyle (\phi \to \chi )\to ((\lnot \phi \to \chi )\to \chi )}
.)
b ¬
¬
ϕ
→
ϕ
{\displaystyle \lnot \lnot \phi \to \phi }
(Law of contraposition)
In general, one may take as the extra axiom any classical tautology
that is not valid in the two-element Kripke frame
∘
⟶
∘
{\displaystyle \circ {\longrightarrow }\circ }
• (
ϕ
∨
ψ
)
→
¬
(
¬
ϕ
∧
¬
ψ
)
{\displaystyle
(\phi \vee \psi )\to \neg (\neg \phi \wedge \neg \psi )}
• (
¬
ϕ
∨
¬
ψ
)
→
¬
(
ϕ
∧
ψ
)
{\displaystyle
(\neg \phi \vee \neg \psi )\to \neg (\phi \wedge \psi )}
• (
¬
ϕ
∧
¬
ψ
)
↔
¬
(
ϕ
∨
ψ
)
{\displaystyle
(\neg \phi \wedge \neg \psi )\leftrightarrow \neg (\phi \vee
\psi )}
Conjunction versus implication:
Weaker than Classical Logic[edit]
Intuitionistic logic is weaker than classical logic. Each theorem of
intuitionistic logic is a theorem in classical logic. Many tautologies in
classical logic are not theorems in intuitionistic logic. Examples
include the law of excluded middle p ∨ ¬p, Peirce's law ((p → q) → p)
→ p, and double negation elimination ¬¬p → p. But double negation
introduction p → ¬¬ p is a theorem.
Rejecting excluded middle may seem strange to those more familiar
with classical logic. To prove it in intuitionistic logic, it is necessary to
prove the truth or falsity of all possible propositional formulae, which
is impossible for a variety of reasons.
Sequent calculus[edit]
Main article: Sequent calculus
Gentzen discovered that a simple restriction of his system LK (his
sequent calculus for classical logic) results in a system which is
sound and complete with respect to intuitionistic logic. He called this
system LJ. In LK any number of formulas is allowed to appear on the
conclusion side of a sequent; in contrast LJ allows at most one
formula in this position.
Other derivatives of LK are limited to intuitionistic derivations but still
allow multiple conclusions in a sequent. LJ'[4] is one example.
Hilbert-style calculus[edit]
Intuitionistic logic can be defined using the following Hilbert-style
calculus. This is similar to a way of axiomatizing classical
propositional logic.
In propositional logic, the inference rule is modus ponens
\to \phi )}
• THEN-2:
(
ϕ
→
(
χ
→
ψ
)
)
→
(
(
ϕ
→
χ
)
→
(
ϕ
→
ψ
)
)
{\displaystyle (\phi \to (\chi \to \psi ))\to
}
• AND-3: ϕ
→
(
χ
→
(
ϕ
∧
χ
)
)
{\displaystyle \phi
• OR-2: χ
→
ϕ
∨
χ
{\displaystyle \chi \to \phi \lor \chi }
• OR-3:
(
ϕ
→
ψ
)
→
(
(
χ
→
ψ
)
→
(
ϕ
∨
χ
→
ψ
)
)
{\displaystyle (\phi \to \psi )\to ((\chi \to \psi )\to
infer
ψ
→
(
∀
x
ϕ
)
{\displaystyle \psi \to (\forall x\
\phi )}
, if x
{\displaystyle x}
•