Contradiction is Negation of Tautology/Proof 1

Theorem

A contradiction implies and is implied by the negation of a tautology:

$\bot \dashv \vdash \neg \top$

That is, a falsehood can not be true, and a non-truth is a falsehood.

Proof

By the tableau method of natural deduction:

$\bot \vdash \neg \top$

Line		Pool	Formula	Rule	Depends upon	Notes
1		1	$\bot$	Premise	(None)
2		2	$\top$	Assumption	(None)
3		1	$\neg \top$	Rule of Explosion: $\bot \EE$	1	Any statement we want
4		1	$\bot$	Proof by Contradiction: $\neg \II$	2 – 3	Assumption 2 has been discharged
5		1	$\neg \top$	Rule of Explosion: $\bot \EE$	4

$\Box$

By the tableau method of natural deduction:

$\neg \top \vdash \bot$

Line		Pool	Formula	Rule	Depends upon	Notes
1		1	$\neg \top$	Premise	(None)
2			$p \lor \neg p$	Law of Excluded Middle	(None)	From the Law of Excluded Middle ...
3			$\top$	Law of Excluded Middle	(None)	... we deduce that truth ...
4		1	$\bot$	Principle of Non-Contradiction: $\neg \EE$	1, 3	... is contrary to the assumption of non-truth, which must therefore be false

$\blacksquare$

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.

That is, the proposition:

If it's not true, it must be false

is valid only in the context where there are only two truth values.