Biconditional Equivalent to Biconditional of Negations/Formulation 1/Reverse Implication
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Theorem
- $\neg p \iff \neg q \vdash p \iff q$
Proof
By the tableau method of natural deduction:
Line | Pool | Formula | Rule | Depends upon | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | $\neg p \iff \neg q$ | Premise | (None) | ||
2 | 1 | $\neg p \implies \neg q$ | Biconditional Elimination: $\iff \EE_1$ | 1 | ||
3 | 1 | $\neg \neg q \implies \neg \neg p$ | Sequent Introduction | 2 | Rule of Transposition | |
4 | 1 | $q \implies p$ | Double Negation Elimination: $\neg \neg \EE$ | 3 | (twice) | |
5 | 1 | $\neg q \implies \neg p$ | Biconditional Elimination: $\iff \EE_2$ | 1 | ||
6 | 1 | $\neg \neg p \implies \neg \neg q$ | Sequent Introduction | 5 | Rule of Transposition | |
7 | 1 | $p \implies q$ | Double Negation Elimination: $\neg \neg \EE$ | 3 | (twice) | |
8 | 1 | $p \iff q$ | Biconditional Introduction: $\iff \II$ | 7, 4 |
$\blacksquare$
Law of the Excluded Middle
This theorem depends on the Law of the Excluded Middle, by way of Double Negation Elimination.
This is one of the axioms of logic that was determined by Aristotle, and forms part of the backbone of classical (Aristotelian) logic.
However, the intuitionist school rejects the Law of the Excluded Middle as a valid logical axiom.
This in turn invalidates this theorem from an intuitionistic perspective.
Sources
- 1965: E.J. Lemmon: Beginning Logic ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $1$: The Propositional Calculus $1$: $4$ The Biconditional: Exercise $1 \ \text{(d)}$