Intuitionistic Logic
Akim Demaille akim@lrde.epita.fr
EPITA — École Pour l’Informatique et les Techniques Avancées
June 10, 2016
Intuitionistic Logic
1 Constructivity
2 Intuitionistic Logic
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 2 / 34
Constructivity
1 Constructivity
2 Intuitionistic Logic
Constructivity
Classical logic does not build truth it discovers a preexisting truth
Classical logic assumes facts are either true or false
` A ∨ ¬A Excluded middle, tertium non datur
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 4 / 34
Constructivity
Classical logic does not build truth it discovers a preexisting truth
Classical logic assumes facts are either true or false
` A ∨ ¬A Excluded middle, tertium non datur
Constructivity
Classical logic does not build truth it discovers a preexisting truth
Classical logic assumes facts are either true or false
` A ∨ ¬A Excluded middle, tertium non datur
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 4 / 34
Constructivity
Classical logic does not build truth it discovers a preexisting truth
Classical logic assumes facts are either true or false
` A ∨ ¬A Excluded middle, tertium non datur
Excluded Middle
XM A ∨ ¬A
· ·
¬¬A ·
¬¬
A [¬A] ·
· · B
[¬A] ·
· ·
¬B
Contradiction A
A ` A
` ¬A, A ` ¬
`r ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A
`l ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A ∨ ¬A
`C
` A ∨ ¬A
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 5 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
In Real Life
A You should respect C’s belief, for all beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
B What about D’s belief? (Where D believes something that is considered to be wrong by most people, such as nazism or the world being flat)
A I agree it is right to deny D’s belief.
B If it is right to deny D’s belief, it is not true that no belief
can be denied. Therefore, I can deny C’s belief if I can give
reasons that suggest it too is incorrect.
Reductio ad Absurdum
In Real Life
A You should respect C’s belief, for all beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
B
1I deny that belief of yours and believe it to be invalid.
2
According to your statement, this belief of mine (1) is valid, like all other beliefs.
3
However, your statement also contradicts and invalidates mine, being the exact opposite of it.
4
The conclusions of 2 and 3 are incompatible and contradictory, so your statement is logically absurd.
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 7 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: The Smallest Positive Rational
There is no smallest positive rational.
1
Suppose there exists one such rational r
2
r/2 is rational and positive
3
r/2 < r
4
Contradiction
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: The Smallest Positive Rational
There is no smallest positive rational.
1
Suppose there exists one such rational r
2
r/2 is rational and positive
3
r/2 < r
4
Contradiction
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 8 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: The Smallest Positive Rational
There is no smallest positive rational.
1
Suppose there exists one such rational r
2
r/2 is rational and positive
3
r/2 < r
4
Contradiction
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: The Smallest Positive Rational
There is no smallest positive rational.
1
Suppose there exists one such rational r
2
r/2 is rational and positive
3
r/2 < r
4
Contradiction
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 8 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: The Smallest Positive Rational
There is no smallest positive rational.
1
Suppose there exists one such rational r
2
r/2 is rational and positive
3
r/2 < r
4
Contradiction
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 9 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 9 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 9 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 9 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 9 / 34
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
Reductio ad Absurdum
Mathematics: √
2 is irrational
√ 2 is irrational.
1
Assume √
2 is rational: ∃a, b integers st. a/b = √ 2
2
a, b can be taken coprime
3
∴ a 2 /b 2 = 2 and a 2 = 2b 2
4
∴ a 2 is even (a 2 = 2b 2 )
5
∴ a is even
6
Because a is even, ∃k st. a = 2k.
7
We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): 2b 2 = (2k) 2 is equivalent to 2b 2 = 4k 2 is equivalent to b 2 = 2k 2 .
8
Since 2k 2 is even, b 2 is even, hence, b is even
9
By (5) and (8) a, b are even
10
Contradicts 2
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 9 / 34
Constructivity
Mathematics: Rationality and Power
There are irrational positive numbers a, b such that a b is rational.
1
√ 2 is known to be irrational
2
Consider √ 2
√ 2 :
1
If it is rational, take a = b = √ 2
2
Otherwise, take a = √ 2
√2
, b = √
2, a
b= 2
But it is not known which numbers.
We proved A ∨ B, but neither A nor B .
Constructivity
Mathematics: Rationality and Power
There are irrational positive numbers a, b such that a b is rational.
1
√ 2 is known to be irrational
2
Consider √ 2
√ 2 :
1
If it is rational, take a = b = √ 2
2
Otherwise, take a = √ 2
√2
, b = √
2, a
b= 2
But it is not known which numbers. We proved A ∨ B, but neither A nor B .
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 10 / 34
Constructivity
Mathematics: Rationality and Power
There are irrational positive numbers a, b such that a b is rational.
1
√ 2 is known to be irrational
2
Consider √ 2
√ 2 :
1
If it is rational, take a = b = √ 2
2
Otherwise, take a = √ 2
√2
, b = √
2, a
b= 2
But it is not known which numbers.
We proved A ∨ B, but neither A nor B .
Constructivity
Mathematics: Rationality and Power
There are irrational positive numbers a, b such that a b is rational.
1
√ 2 is known to be irrational
2
Consider √ 2
√ 2 :
1
If it is rational, take a = b = √ 2
2
Otherwise, take a = √ 2
√2
, b = √
2, a
b= 2
But it is not known which numbers. We proved A ∨ B, but neither A nor B .
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 10 / 34
Constructivity
Mathematics: Rationality and Power
There are irrational positive numbers a, b such that a b is rational.
1
√ 2 is known to be irrational
2
Consider √ 2
√ 2 :
1
If it is rational, take a = b = √ 2
2
Otherwise, take a = √ 2
√2
, b = √
2, a
b= 2
But it is not known which numbers.
We proved A ∨ B, but neither A nor B .
Constructivity
Mathematics: Rationality and Power
There are irrational positive numbers a, b such that a b is rational.
1
√ 2 is known to be irrational
2
Consider √ 2
√ 2 :
1
If it is rational, take a = b = √ 2
2
Otherwise, take a = √ 2
√2
, b = √
2, a
b= 2 But it is not known which numbers.
We proved A ∨ B, but neither A nor B .
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 10 / 34
Constructivity
Mathematics: Rationality and Power
There are irrational positive numbers a, b such that a b is rational.
1
√ 2 is known to be irrational
2
Consider √ 2
√ 2 :
1
If it is rational, take a = b = √ 2
2
Otherwise, take a = √ 2
√2
, b = √
2, a
b= 2 But it is not known which numbers.
We proved A ∨ B, but neither A nor B.
Constructivity
Mathematics: Unknown Numbers
Let σ be the number defined below. Its value is unknown, but it is rational.
For each decimal digit of π, write 3. Stop if the sequence 0123456789 is found.
1
If 0123456789 occurs in π, then σ = 0, 3 . . . 3 = 10 3.10
k−1
k2
If it does not, σ = 0, 3 . . . = 1/3
We proved ∃x.P (x), but know no t : P (t).
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 11 / 34
Constructivity
Mathematics: Unknown Numbers
Let σ be the number defined below. Its value is unknown, but it is rational.
For each decimal digit of π, write 3. Stop if the sequence 0123456789 is found.
1
If 0123456789 occurs in π, then σ = 0, 3 . . . 3 = 10 3.10
k−1
k2
If it does not, σ = 0, 3 . . . = 1/3
We proved ∃x.P (x), but know no t : P (t).
Constructivity
Mathematics: Unknown Numbers
Let σ be the number defined below. Its value is unknown, but it is rational.
For each decimal digit of π, write 3. Stop if the sequence 0123456789 is found.
1
If 0123456789 occurs in π, then σ = 0, 3 . . . 3 = 10 3.10
k−1
k2
If it does not, σ = 0, 3 . . . = 1/3
We proved ∃x.P (x), but know no t : P (t).
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 11 / 34
Constructivity
Mathematics: Unknown Numbers
Let σ be the number defined below. Its value is unknown, but it is rational.
For each decimal digit of π, write 3. Stop if the sequence 0123456789 is found.
1
If 0123456789 occurs in π, then σ = 0, 3 . . . 3 = 10 3.10
k−1
k2
If it does not, σ = 0, 3 . . . = 1/3
We proved ∃x.P (x), but know no t : P (t).
Constructivity
Disjunction Property
If A ∨ B is provable, then either A or B is provable, and reading the proof tells which one.
Existence Property
If ∃x · A(x) is provable, then reading the proof allows to exhibit a witness t (i.e., such that A(t)).
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 12 / 34
Constructivity
Disjunction Property
If A ∨ B is provable, then either A or B is provable, and reading the proof tells which one.
Existence Property
If ∃x · A(x) is provable, then reading the proof allows to exhibit a witness t
(i.e., such that A(t)).
Intuitionistic Logic
1 Constructivity
2 Intuitionistic Logic
NJ: Intuitionistic Natural Deduction LJ: Intuitionistic Sequent Calculus
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 13 / 34
Intuitionistic Logic
Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer (1881–1966)
Intuitionistic Logic
Classical logic focuses on truth (hence truth values) Intuitionistic logic focuses on provability (hence proofs) A is true if it is provable
The excluded middle is. . . excluded
A ` A
` ¬A, A ` ¬
` r∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A
` l ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A ∨ ¬A
` C
` A ∨ ¬A
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 15 / 34
Intuitionistic Logic
Classical logic focuses on truth (hence truth values) Intuitionistic logic focuses on provability (hence proofs) A is true if it is provable
The excluded middle is. . . excluded
A ` A
` ¬A, A ` ¬
` r∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A
` l ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A ∨ ¬A
` C
` A ∨ ¬A
Intuitionistic Logic
Classical logic focuses on truth (hence truth values) Intuitionistic logic focuses on provability (hence proofs) A is true if it is provable
The excluded middle is. . . excluded
A ` A
` ¬A, A ` ¬
` r∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A
` l ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A ∨ ¬A
` C
` A ∨ ¬A
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 15 / 34
Intuitionistic Logic
Classical logic focuses on truth (hence truth values) Intuitionistic logic focuses on provability (hence proofs) A is true if it is provable
The excluded middle is. . . excluded
A ` A
` ¬A, A ` ¬
` r∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A
` l ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A ∨ ¬A
` C
` A ∨ ¬A
Intuitionistic Logic
Classical logic focuses on truth (hence truth values) Intuitionistic logic focuses on provability (hence proofs) A is true if it is provable
The excluded middle is. . . excluded
A ` A
` ¬A, A ` ¬
` r∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A
` l ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A ∨ ¬A
` C
` A ∨ ¬A
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 15 / 34
Intuitionistic Logic
Classical logic focuses on truth (hence truth values) Intuitionistic logic focuses on provability (hence proofs) A is true if it is provable
The excluded middle is. . . excluded
A ` A
` ¬A, A ` ¬
` r∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A
` l ∨
` A ∨ ¬A, A ∨ ¬A
` C
` A ∨ ¬A
NJ: Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
1 Constructivity
2 Intuitionistic Logic
NJ: Intuitionistic Natural Deduction LJ: Intuitionistic Sequent Calculus
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 16 / 34
Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
Natural deduction supports very well intuistionistic logic.
In fact, classical logic does not fit well in natural deduction.
[A] ·
· ·
⊥
¬A ¬I
· ·
· A
· ·
¬A ·
⊥ ¬E
XM A ∨ ¬A
· ·
¬¬A ·
¬¬
A
[¬A] ·
· · B
[¬A] ·
· ·
¬B
Contradiction
A
Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
Natural deduction supports very well intuistionistic logic.
In fact, classical logic does not fit well in natural deduction.
[A] ·
· ·
⊥
¬A ¬I
· ·
· A
· ·
¬A ·
⊥ ¬E
XM A ∨ ¬A
· ·
¬¬A ·
¬¬
A
[¬A] ·
· · B
[¬A] ·
· ·
¬B
Contradiction A
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 17 / 34
Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
Natural deduction supports very well intuistionistic logic.
In fact, classical logic does not fit well in natural deduction.
[A] ·
· ·
⊥
¬A ¬I
· ·
· A
· ·
¬A ·
⊥ ¬E
XM A ∨ ¬A
· ·
¬¬A ·
¬¬
A
[¬A] ·
· · B
[¬A] ·
· ·
¬B
Contradiction
A
Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
Natural deduction supports very well intuistionistic logic.
In fact, classical logic does not fit well in natural deduction.
[A] ·
· ·
⊥
¬A ¬I
· ·
· A
· ·
¬A ·
⊥ ¬E
XM A ∨ ¬A
· ·
¬¬A ·
¬¬
A
[¬A] ·
· · B
[¬A] ·
· ·
¬B
Contradiction A
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 17 / 34
Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
Natural deduction supports very well intuistionistic logic.
In fact, classical logic does not fit well in natural deduction.
[A] ·
· ·
⊥
¬A ¬I
· ·
· A
· ·
¬A ·
⊥ ¬E
XM A ∨ ¬A
· ·
¬¬A ·
¬¬ A
[¬A] ·
· · B
[¬A] ·
· ·
¬B
Contradiction
A
Intuitionistic Negation
[A] ·
· ·
⊥ ¬I
¬A
· · A ·
· ·
¬A ·
¬E
⊥ [A] ·
· ·
B ⇒I A ⇒ B
· ·
· A
· ·
· A ⇒ B
⇒E B
So define ¬A := A ⇒ ⊥.
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 18 / 34
Intuitionistic Negation
[A] ·
· ·
⊥ ¬I
¬A
· · A ·
· ·
¬A ·
¬E
⊥ [A] ·
· ·
B ⇒I A ⇒ B
· ·
· A
· ·
· A ⇒ B
⇒E B
So define ¬A := A ⇒ ⊥.
Prove A ` ¬¬A
A [A ⇒ ⊥] 1
⊥ ⇒E
⇒I 1 (A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 19 / 34
Prove A ` ¬¬A
A [A ⇒ ⊥] 1
⊥ ⇒E
⇒I 1
(A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥
Prove ¬¬¬A ` ¬A
[A] 2 [A ⇒ ⊥] 1
⇒E
⊥ ⇒I 1
(A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥ ((A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥
⇒E
⊥ ⇒I 2 A ⇒ ⊥
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 20 / 34
Prove ¬¬¬A ` ¬A
[A] 2 [A ⇒ ⊥] 1
⇒E
⊥ ⇒I 1
(A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥ ((A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥
⇒E
⊥ ⇒I 2
A ⇒ ⊥
Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
[A] ·
· ·
B ⇒I A ⇒ B
· · A ·
· · A ⇒ · B
⇒E B
· ·
⊥ ·
⊥E A A B
∧I A ∧ B
A ∧ B
∧l E A
A ∧ B
∧r E B
· ·
· A ∨lI A ∨ B
· ·
· B ∨rI A ∨ B
· ·
· A ∨ B
[A] ·
· · C
[B ]
· ·
·
C ∨E
C
LJ: Intuitionistic Sequent Calculus
1 Constructivity
2 Intuitionistic Logic
NJ: Intuitionistic Natural Deduction
LJ: Intuitionistic Sequent Calculus
LJ — Intuitionistic Sequent Calculus
LJ — Gentzen 1934
Logistischer intuitionistischer Kalkül
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 23 / 34
LK: Identity Group
Id A ` A
Γ ` A, ∆ Γ 0 , A ` ∆ 0
Cut
Γ, Γ 0 ` ∆,∆ 0
LK: Identity Group
Id A ` A
Γ ` A, ∆ Γ 0 , A ` ∆ 0 Cut Γ, Γ 0 ` ∆,∆ 0
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 24 / 34
LJ: Identity Group
Id A ` A
Γ ` A
, ∆
Γ 0 , A ` B Cut Γ, Γ 0 `
∆,
B
LK: Structural Group
Γ ` ∆
`X Γ ` τ (∆)
Γ ` ∆ X ` σ(Γ) ` ∆ Γ ` ∆
`W Γ ` A, ∆
Γ ` ∆ W`
Γ, A ` ∆ Γ ` A, A, ∆
` C Γ ` A, ∆
Γ, A, A ` ∆ C ` Γ, A ` ∆
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 25 / 34
LK: Structural Group
Γ ` ∆
`X Γ ` τ (∆)
Γ ` ∆ X ` σ(Γ) ` ∆ Γ ` ∆
`W Γ ` A, ∆
Γ ` ∆ W`
Γ, A ` ∆ Γ ` A, A, ∆
` C Γ ` A, ∆
Γ, A, A ` ∆
C `
Γ, A ` ∆
LJ: Structural Group
Γ ` ∆
` X Γ ` τ (∆)
Γ ` B X ` σ(Γ) ` B
Γ ` ∆
` W Γ ` A, ∆
Γ ` B W ` Γ, A ` B
Γ ` A, A, ∆
` C Γ ` A, ∆
Γ, A, A ` B C`
Γ, A ` B
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 25 / 34
LK: Logical Group: Negation
Γ, A ` ∆
` ¬ Γ ` ¬A, ∆
Γ ` A, ∆
¬ `
Γ, ¬A ` ∆
LK: Logical Group: Negation
Γ, A ` ∆
` ¬ Γ ` ¬A, ∆
Γ ` A, ∆
¬ ` Γ, ¬A ` ∆
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 26 / 34
LJ: Logical Group: Negation
Γ, A ` ∆
` ¬ Γ ` ¬A, ∆
Γ ` A, ∆
¬ `
Γ, ¬A ` ∆
LK: Logical Group: Conjunction
Γ ` A, ∆ Γ ` B , ∆
` ∧ Γ ` A ∧ B, ∆
Γ, A ` ∆ l ∧ ` Γ, A ∧ B ` ∆
Γ, B ` ∆ r ∧ ` Γ, A ∧ B ` ∆
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 27 / 34
LK: Logical Group: Conjunction
Γ ` A, ∆ Γ ` B , ∆
` ∧ Γ ` A ∧ B, ∆
Γ, A ` ∆ l ∧ ` Γ, A ∧ B ` ∆
Γ, B ` ∆
r ∧ `
Γ, A ∧ B ` ∆
LJ: Logical Group: Conjunction
Γ ` A
, ∆
Γ ` B
, ∆
` ∧ Γ ` A ∧ B
, ∆
Γ, A ` C
l∧ ` Γ, A ∧ B ` C
Γ, B ` C
r∧ ` Γ, A ∧ B ` C
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 27 / 34
LK: Logical Group: Disjunction
Γ ` A, ∆
` l∨
Γ ` A ∨ B, ∆ Γ ` B , ∆
` r∨
Γ ` A ∨ B, ∆
Γ, A ` ∆ Γ, B ` ∆
∨ `
Γ, A ∨ B ` ∆
LK: Logical Group: Disjunction
Γ ` A, ∆
` l∨
Γ ` A ∨ B, ∆ Γ ` B , ∆
` r∨
Γ ` A ∨ B, ∆
Γ, A ` ∆ Γ, B ` ∆
∨ ` Γ, A ∨ B ` ∆
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 28 / 34
LJ: Logical Group: Disjunction
Γ ` A
, ∆
` l∨
Γ ` A ∨ B
, ∆
Γ ` B
, ∆
` r∨
Γ ` A ∨ B
, ∆
Γ, A ` C Γ, B ` C
∨ `
Γ, A ∨ B ` C
LK: Logical Group: Implication
Γ ` A, ∆ Γ 0 , B ` ∆ 0
⇒`
Γ, Γ 0 , A ⇒ B ` ∆,∆ 0
Γ, A ` B, ∆
`⇒
Γ ` A ⇒ B, ∆
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 29 / 34
LK: Logical Group: Implication
Γ ` A, ∆ Γ 0 , B ` ∆ 0
⇒`
Γ, Γ 0 , A ⇒ B ` ∆,∆ 0
Γ, A ` B, ∆
`⇒
Γ ` A ⇒ B, ∆
LJ: Logical Group: Implication
Γ ` A
, ∆
Γ 0 , B ` B 0
⇒`
Γ, Γ 0 , A ⇒ B `
∆,
B 0
Γ, A ` B
, ∆
`⇒
Γ ` A ⇒ B
, ∆
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 29 / 34
LJ
Id A ` A
Γ ` A Γ 0 , A ` B Cut Γ, Γ 0 ` B
Γ ` B X ` σ(Γ) ` B
Γ ` B W`
Γ, A ` B
Γ, A, A ` B C ` Γ, A ` B Γ ` A Γ ` B
` ∧ Γ ` A ∧ B
Γ, A ` C
l ∧ ` Γ, A ∧ B ` C
Γ, B ` C
r∧ ` Γ, A ∧ B ` C Γ ` A
` l ∨ Γ ` A ∨ B
Γ ` B
` r∨
Γ ` A ∨ B
Γ, A ` C Γ, B ` C
∨ ` Γ, A ∨ B ` C
Γ ` A Γ 0 , B ` C
⇒`
Γ, Γ 0 , A ⇒ B ` C
Γ, A ` B
`⇒
Γ ` A ⇒ B
Prove A ` ¬¬A
A − ` A + ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
⇒` A − , A + ⇒ ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
`⇒ A − ` (A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ +
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 31 / 34
Prove A ` ¬¬A
A ` A ⊥ ` ⊥
⇒`
A, A ⇒ ⊥ ` ⊥
`⇒
A ` (A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥
Prove A ` ¬¬A
A − ` A + ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
⇒`
A − , A + ⇒ ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
`⇒
A − ` (A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ +
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 31 / 34
Prove ¬¬¬A ` ¬A
A − ` A + ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
⇒` A − , A + ⇒ ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
`⇒
A − ` (A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ + ⊥ 0 − ` ⊥ 0 +
⇒` A − , ((A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ + ) ⇒ ⊥ 0 − ` ⊥ 0 +
`⇒
((A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ + ) ⇒ ⊥ 0 − ` A − ⇒ ⊥ 0 +
Therefore, in intuistionistic logic ¬¬¬A ≡ ¬A, but ¬¬A 6≡ A.
Prove ¬¬¬A ` ¬A
A ` A ⊥ ` ⊥
⇒`
A, A ⇒ ⊥ ` ⊥
`⇒
A ` (A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥ ⊥ 0 ` ⊥ 0
⇒`
A, ((A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥ 0 ` ⊥ 0
`⇒
((A ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥) ⇒ ⊥ 0 ` A ⇒ ⊥ 0
Therefore, in intuistionistic logic ¬¬¬A ≡ ¬A, but ¬¬A 6≡ A.
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 32 / 34
Prove ¬¬¬A ` ¬A
A − ` A + ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
⇒`
A − , A + ⇒ ⊥ − ` ⊥ +
`⇒
A − ` (A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ + ⊥ 0 − ` ⊥ 0 +
⇒`
A − , ((A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ + ) ⇒ ⊥ 0 − ` ⊥ 0 +
`⇒
((A + ⇒ ⊥ − ) ⇒ ⊥ + ) ⇒ ⊥ 0 − ` A − ⇒ ⊥ 0 +
Therefore, in intuistionistic logic ¬¬¬A ≡ ¬A, but ¬¬A 6≡ A.
Recommended Readings
[van Atten, 2009]
The history of intuitionistic logic.
A. Demaille Intuitionistic Logic 33 / 34