Description: This minimal
implicational calculus tautology is used in the following
argument: When 𝜑, 𝜓, 𝜒, 𝜃, 𝜏 are replaced respectively by
(𝜑
→ ⊥), ⊥, 𝜑,
⊥, ⊥, the antecedent becomes
¬ ¬ (¬ ¬ 𝜑 → 𝜑), that is, the double negation of
the
stability of 𝜑. If that statement were provable in
minimal
calculus, then, since ⊥ plays no particular
role in minimal calculus,
also the statement with 𝜓 in place of ⊥ would be provable. The
corresponding consequent is (((𝜓 → 𝜑) → 𝜓) → 𝜓), that
is, the non-intuitionistic Peirce law. Therefore, the double negation of
the stability of any formula is not provable in minimal calculus.
However, it is provable both in intuitionistic calculus (see
iset.mm/bj-nnst) and in classical refutability calculus (see
bj-peircestab 34733). (Contributed by BJ, 30-Nov-2023.)
(Revised by BJ,
30-Jul-2024.) (Proof modification is
discouraged.) |