Conjunction with Tautology/Proof 1
Theorem
- $p \land \top \dashv \vdash p$
Proof
By the tableau method of natural deduction:
| Line | Pool | Formula | Rule | Depends upon | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | $p \land \top$ | Premise | (None) | ||
| 2 | 1 | $p$ | Rule of Simplification: $\land \mathcal E_1$ | 1 |
$\Box$
By the tableau method of natural deduction:
| Line | Pool | Formula | Rule | Depends upon | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | $p$ | Premise | (None) | ||
| 2 | $q \lor \neg q$ | Law of Excluded Middle | (None) | |||
| 3 | $\top$ | Law of Excluded Middle | (None) | |||
| 4 | 1 | $p \land \top$ | Rule of Conjunction: $\land \mathcal I$ | 1, 3 |
$\blacksquare$
The above needs to be reviewed.
You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by resolving the issues.
To discuss this proof in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.
If you are able to fix this page, then when you have done so you can remove this instance of {{Questionable}} from the code.
If you would welcome a second opinion as to whether your correction is correct, add a call to {{Proofread}} the page (see the proofread template for usage).
Law of the Excluded Middle
This theorem depends on the Law of the Excluded Middle.
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.
The propositions:
- If it's not false, it must be true
and
- If it's not true, it must be false
are indeed valid only in the context where there are only two truth values.
From the intuitionistic perspective, these results do not hold.