how to prove that (P⊃Q)≡(¬Q⊃¬P) ( P ⊃ Q ) ≡ ( ¬ Q ⊃ ¬ P ) is disallowed in intuitionistic...
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
this is what I've tried;
define kripke model K=({0,1},≤,⊩) where ≤ is the (total) order relation over {0,1} defined by
0≤0 0≤ 11≤1,and ⊩ is a binary relation from {0,1} to the set of propositional variables such that 0⊮A and 1⊩A and 1⊮B and 0⊩B. then
1⊮(A⊃B)≡(¬B⊃¬A) ( B ⊃ A ) ≡ ( ¬ B ⊃ ¬ A )
can somebody tell me if this is correct or if there are errors, what are they and how can they be corrected?
logic intuitionistic-logic
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
this is what I've tried;
define kripke model K=({0,1},≤,⊩) where ≤ is the (total) order relation over {0,1} defined by
0≤0 0≤ 11≤1,and ⊩ is a binary relation from {0,1} to the set of propositional variables such that 0⊮A and 1⊩A and 1⊮B and 0⊩B. then
1⊮(A⊃B)≡(¬B⊃¬A) ( B ⊃ A ) ≡ ( ¬ B ⊃ ¬ A )
can somebody tell me if this is correct or if there are errors, what are they and how can they be corrected?
logic intuitionistic-logic
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
1
A special case of that with $P = top$ would be $Q equiv lnot lnot Q$...
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:11
@DanielSchepler P=T? could you please clarify what you mean? I appreciate you trying to help and I need to know how to prove this soon
– katerine
Dec 5 at 23:33
I'm not sure what your question here is. If $P$ is the true proposition, then $(P supset Q) = (top supset Q) equiv Q$ and $(lnot Q supset lnot P) = (lnot Q supset lnot top) equiv (lnot Q supset bot) equiv lnot lnot Q$.
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:37
2
In a Kripke model, if $0 Vdash B$ and $0 leq 1$, then $1 Vdash B$ too—theorem’s can’t become “unproved”.
– ryan221b
Dec 6 at 0:57
1
Already asked and answered here.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Dec 6 at 7:45
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
this is what I've tried;
define kripke model K=({0,1},≤,⊩) where ≤ is the (total) order relation over {0,1} defined by
0≤0 0≤ 11≤1,and ⊩ is a binary relation from {0,1} to the set of propositional variables such that 0⊮A and 1⊩A and 1⊮B and 0⊩B. then
1⊮(A⊃B)≡(¬B⊃¬A) ( B ⊃ A ) ≡ ( ¬ B ⊃ ¬ A )
can somebody tell me if this is correct or if there are errors, what are they and how can they be corrected?
logic intuitionistic-logic
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
this is what I've tried;
define kripke model K=({0,1},≤,⊩) where ≤ is the (total) order relation over {0,1} defined by
0≤0 0≤ 11≤1,and ⊩ is a binary relation from {0,1} to the set of propositional variables such that 0⊮A and 1⊩A and 1⊮B and 0⊩B. then
1⊮(A⊃B)≡(¬B⊃¬A) ( B ⊃ A ) ≡ ( ¬ B ⊃ ¬ A )
can somebody tell me if this is correct or if there are errors, what are they and how can they be corrected?
logic intuitionistic-logic
logic intuitionistic-logic
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
edited Dec 5 at 23:03
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
asked Dec 5 at 21:11
katerine
394
394
1
A special case of that with $P = top$ would be $Q equiv lnot lnot Q$...
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:11
@DanielSchepler P=T? could you please clarify what you mean? I appreciate you trying to help and I need to know how to prove this soon
– katerine
Dec 5 at 23:33
I'm not sure what your question here is. If $P$ is the true proposition, then $(P supset Q) = (top supset Q) equiv Q$ and $(lnot Q supset lnot P) = (lnot Q supset lnot top) equiv (lnot Q supset bot) equiv lnot lnot Q$.
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:37
2
In a Kripke model, if $0 Vdash B$ and $0 leq 1$, then $1 Vdash B$ too—theorem’s can’t become “unproved”.
– ryan221b
Dec 6 at 0:57
1
Already asked and answered here.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Dec 6 at 7:45
|
show 2 more comments
1
A special case of that with $P = top$ would be $Q equiv lnot lnot Q$...
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:11
@DanielSchepler P=T? could you please clarify what you mean? I appreciate you trying to help and I need to know how to prove this soon
– katerine
Dec 5 at 23:33
I'm not sure what your question here is. If $P$ is the true proposition, then $(P supset Q) = (top supset Q) equiv Q$ and $(lnot Q supset lnot P) = (lnot Q supset lnot top) equiv (lnot Q supset bot) equiv lnot lnot Q$.
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:37
2
In a Kripke model, if $0 Vdash B$ and $0 leq 1$, then $1 Vdash B$ too—theorem’s can’t become “unproved”.
– ryan221b
Dec 6 at 0:57
1
Already asked and answered here.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Dec 6 at 7:45
1
1
A special case of that with $P = top$ would be $Q equiv lnot lnot Q$...
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:11
A special case of that with $P = top$ would be $Q equiv lnot lnot Q$...
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:11
@DanielSchepler P=T? could you please clarify what you mean? I appreciate you trying to help and I need to know how to prove this soon
– katerine
Dec 5 at 23:33
@DanielSchepler P=T? could you please clarify what you mean? I appreciate you trying to help and I need to know how to prove this soon
– katerine
Dec 5 at 23:33
I'm not sure what your question here is. If $P$ is the true proposition, then $(P supset Q) = (top supset Q) equiv Q$ and $(lnot Q supset lnot P) = (lnot Q supset lnot top) equiv (lnot Q supset bot) equiv lnot lnot Q$.
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:37
I'm not sure what your question here is. If $P$ is the true proposition, then $(P supset Q) = (top supset Q) equiv Q$ and $(lnot Q supset lnot P) = (lnot Q supset lnot top) equiv (lnot Q supset bot) equiv lnot lnot Q$.
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:37
2
2
In a Kripke model, if $0 Vdash B$ and $0 leq 1$, then $1 Vdash B$ too—theorem’s can’t become “unproved”.
– ryan221b
Dec 6 at 0:57
In a Kripke model, if $0 Vdash B$ and $0 leq 1$, then $1 Vdash B$ too—theorem’s can’t become “unproved”.
– ryan221b
Dec 6 at 0:57
1
1
Already asked and answered here.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Dec 6 at 7:45
Already asked and answered here.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Dec 6 at 7:45
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I am a bit confused by your notation, so I think this may only be a partial answer, but I hope it helps.
Note that intuitionistically, as classically, $(A supset B) supset (lnot B supset lnot A)$; so to show that the two aren't equivalent, we're going to have to produce a counterexample to $(lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$.
I'm assuming you are familiar with Kripke semantics (quick reminder here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3027858/446689). Consider this structure:
- Since $1Vdash B$, we have $0notVdashlnot B$ and $1notVdashlnot B$, so $0Vdash (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
- On the other hand, $0Vdash A$ but $0notVdash B$, so $0notVdash (A supset B)$.
Therefore, $0notVdash (lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$, and so $0notVdash (A supset B) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
You also seem to consider $(B supset A) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$, but this is even classically false!
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f3027656%2fhow-to-prove-that-p%25e2%258a%2583q%25e2%2589%25a1%25c2%25acq%25e2%258a%2583%25c2%25acp-p-%25e2%258a%2583-q-%25e2%2589%25a1-%25c2%25ac-q-%25e2%258a%2583-%25c2%25ac-p-is-disallowed-in-intui%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I am a bit confused by your notation, so I think this may only be a partial answer, but I hope it helps.
Note that intuitionistically, as classically, $(A supset B) supset (lnot B supset lnot A)$; so to show that the two aren't equivalent, we're going to have to produce a counterexample to $(lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$.
I'm assuming you are familiar with Kripke semantics (quick reminder here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3027858/446689). Consider this structure:
- Since $1Vdash B$, we have $0notVdashlnot B$ and $1notVdashlnot B$, so $0Vdash (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
- On the other hand, $0Vdash A$ but $0notVdash B$, so $0notVdash (A supset B)$.
Therefore, $0notVdash (lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$, and so $0notVdash (A supset B) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
You also seem to consider $(B supset A) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$, but this is even classically false!
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I am a bit confused by your notation, so I think this may only be a partial answer, but I hope it helps.
Note that intuitionistically, as classically, $(A supset B) supset (lnot B supset lnot A)$; so to show that the two aren't equivalent, we're going to have to produce a counterexample to $(lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$.
I'm assuming you are familiar with Kripke semantics (quick reminder here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3027858/446689). Consider this structure:
- Since $1Vdash B$, we have $0notVdashlnot B$ and $1notVdashlnot B$, so $0Vdash (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
- On the other hand, $0Vdash A$ but $0notVdash B$, so $0notVdash (A supset B)$.
Therefore, $0notVdash (lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$, and so $0notVdash (A supset B) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
You also seem to consider $(B supset A) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$, but this is even classically false!
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I am a bit confused by your notation, so I think this may only be a partial answer, but I hope it helps.
Note that intuitionistically, as classically, $(A supset B) supset (lnot B supset lnot A)$; so to show that the two aren't equivalent, we're going to have to produce a counterexample to $(lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$.
I'm assuming you are familiar with Kripke semantics (quick reminder here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3027858/446689). Consider this structure:
- Since $1Vdash B$, we have $0notVdashlnot B$ and $1notVdashlnot B$, so $0Vdash (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
- On the other hand, $0Vdash A$ but $0notVdash B$, so $0notVdash (A supset B)$.
Therefore, $0notVdash (lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$, and so $0notVdash (A supset B) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
You also seem to consider $(B supset A) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$, but this is even classically false!
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
I am a bit confused by your notation, so I think this may only be a partial answer, but I hope it helps.
Note that intuitionistically, as classically, $(A supset B) supset (lnot B supset lnot A)$; so to show that the two aren't equivalent, we're going to have to produce a counterexample to $(lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$.
I'm assuming you are familiar with Kripke semantics (quick reminder here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3027858/446689). Consider this structure:
- Since $1Vdash B$, we have $0notVdashlnot B$ and $1notVdashlnot B$, so $0Vdash (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
- On the other hand, $0Vdash A$ but $0notVdash B$, so $0notVdash (A supset B)$.
Therefore, $0notVdash (lnot B supset lnot A) supset (A supset B)$, and so $0notVdash (A supset B) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$.
You also seem to consider $(B supset A) equiv (lnot B supset lnot A)$, but this is even classically false!
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
answered Dec 6 at 2:01
ryan221b
9510
9510
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%2f3027656%2fhow-to-prove-that-p%25e2%258a%2583q%25e2%2589%25a1%25c2%25acq%25e2%258a%2583%25c2%25acp-p-%25e2%258a%2583-q-%25e2%2589%25a1-%25c2%25ac-q-%25e2%258a%2583-%25c2%25ac-p-is-disallowed-in-intui%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
A special case of that with $P = top$ would be $Q equiv lnot lnot Q$...
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:11
@DanielSchepler P=T? could you please clarify what you mean? I appreciate you trying to help and I need to know how to prove this soon
– katerine
Dec 5 at 23:33
I'm not sure what your question here is. If $P$ is the true proposition, then $(P supset Q) = (top supset Q) equiv Q$ and $(lnot Q supset lnot P) = (lnot Q supset lnot top) equiv (lnot Q supset bot) equiv lnot lnot Q$.
– Daniel Schepler
Dec 5 at 23:37
2
In a Kripke model, if $0 Vdash B$ and $0 leq 1$, then $1 Vdash B$ too—theorem’s can’t become “unproved”.
– ryan221b
Dec 6 at 0:57
1
Already asked and answered here.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Dec 6 at 7:45