How to prove that in intuitionistic logic the contrapositive law is disallowed?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
here are my efforts:
I need to show that $(P supset Q) equiv (neg Q supset neg P)$
for this I need to construct a kripke model. I construct the following model:
$K = ({0,1}, leq , models)$
then I define the followings for $A$ and $B$
$0 nvDash A$ $1 vDash A$
$ 1 nvDash B$ $0 vDash B $
then I say that
$ 1 nvDash (neg B to neg A) to Ato B$
Can somebody say what is wrong with my proof?
logic
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
here are my efforts:
I need to show that $(P supset Q) equiv (neg Q supset neg P)$
for this I need to construct a kripke model. I construct the following model:
$K = ({0,1}, leq , models)$
then I define the followings for $A$ and $B$
$0 nvDash A$ $1 vDash A$
$ 1 nvDash B$ $0 vDash B $
then I say that
$ 1 nvDash (neg B to neg A) to Ato B$
Can somebody say what is wrong with my proof?
logic
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
1
Well, you can’t just say things, you have to show them. Also in the convention I’m used to, the greatest world is classical (so that would have to be true in $1$). If you gave some indication why you think this is the case, it would be easy to see if you’re using a different convention or just wrong.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 16 at 21:41
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
here are my efforts:
I need to show that $(P supset Q) equiv (neg Q supset neg P)$
for this I need to construct a kripke model. I construct the following model:
$K = ({0,1}, leq , models)$
then I define the followings for $A$ and $B$
$0 nvDash A$ $1 vDash A$
$ 1 nvDash B$ $0 vDash B $
then I say that
$ 1 nvDash (neg B to neg A) to Ato B$
Can somebody say what is wrong with my proof?
logic
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
here are my efforts:
I need to show that $(P supset Q) equiv (neg Q supset neg P)$
for this I need to construct a kripke model. I construct the following model:
$K = ({0,1}, leq , models)$
then I define the followings for $A$ and $B$
$0 nvDash A$ $1 vDash A$
$ 1 nvDash B$ $0 vDash B $
then I say that
$ 1 nvDash (neg B to neg A) to Ato B$
Can somebody say what is wrong with my proof?
logic
logic
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
edited Nov 16 at 20:21
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
63.6k448110
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
asked Nov 16 at 20:18
jadenperesl
11
11
1
Well, you can’t just say things, you have to show them. Also in the convention I’m used to, the greatest world is classical (so that would have to be true in $1$). If you gave some indication why you think this is the case, it would be easy to see if you’re using a different convention or just wrong.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 16 at 21:41
add a comment |
1
Well, you can’t just say things, you have to show them. Also in the convention I’m used to, the greatest world is classical (so that would have to be true in $1$). If you gave some indication why you think this is the case, it would be easy to see if you’re using a different convention or just wrong.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 16 at 21:41
1
1
Well, you can’t just say things, you have to show them. Also in the convention I’m used to, the greatest world is classical (so that would have to be true in $1$). If you gave some indication why you think this is the case, it would be easy to see if you’re using a different convention or just wrong.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 16 at 21:41
Well, you can’t just say things, you have to show them. Also in the convention I’m used to, the greatest world is classical (so that would have to be true in $1$). If you gave some indication why you think this is the case, it would be easy to see if you’re using a different convention or just wrong.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 16 at 21:41
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Long comment
You are violating the rules of Kripke semantics : if $B$ is true in "world" $0$ [in symbols : $w_0 Vdash B$], it cannot be false in $1$, i.e. we cannot have $w_1 nVdash B$.
We need a three-nodes model with $w_0Rw_1$ and $w_0Rw_2$.
In no node we must have both $A$ and $B$ true, in order to have : $w_0 nVdash (A to B)$.
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Long comment
You are violating the rules of Kripke semantics : if $B$ is true in "world" $0$ [in symbols : $w_0 Vdash B$], it cannot be false in $1$, i.e. we cannot have $w_1 nVdash B$.
We need a three-nodes model with $w_0Rw_1$ and $w_0Rw_2$.
In no node we must have both $A$ and $B$ true, in order to have : $w_0 nVdash (A to B)$.
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Long comment
You are violating the rules of Kripke semantics : if $B$ is true in "world" $0$ [in symbols : $w_0 Vdash B$], it cannot be false in $1$, i.e. we cannot have $w_1 nVdash B$.
We need a three-nodes model with $w_0Rw_1$ and $w_0Rw_2$.
In no node we must have both $A$ and $B$ true, in order to have : $w_0 nVdash (A to B)$.
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Long comment
You are violating the rules of Kripke semantics : if $B$ is true in "world" $0$ [in symbols : $w_0 Vdash B$], it cannot be false in $1$, i.e. we cannot have $w_1 nVdash B$.
We need a three-nodes model with $w_0Rw_1$ and $w_0Rw_2$.
In no node we must have both $A$ and $B$ true, in order to have : $w_0 nVdash (A to B)$.
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
Long comment
You are violating the rules of Kripke semantics : if $B$ is true in "world" $0$ [in symbols : $w_0 Vdash B$], it cannot be false in $1$, i.e. we cannot have $w_1 nVdash B$.
We need a three-nodes model with $w_0Rw_1$ and $w_0Rw_2$.
In no node we must have both $A$ and $B$ true, in order to have : $w_0 nVdash (A to B)$.
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
answered Nov 29 at 12:25
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
63.6k448110
63.6k448110
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001601%2fhow-to-prove-that-in-intuitionistic-logic-the-contrapositive-law-is-disallowed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Well, you can’t just say things, you have to show them. Also in the convention I’m used to, the greatest world is classical (so that would have to be true in $1$). If you gave some indication why you think this is the case, it would be easy to see if you’re using a different convention or just wrong.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 16 at 21:41