Examples of natural deduction proofs that use proof by contradiction aka reductio ad absurdum (RAA). [1] [2]
(All of the statements can be easily verified using truth tables. It is instructive to compare the method of truth tables with the natural deduction proofs.)
Remark on Notation: If and are logical formulas, then claims that there is a proof of assuming . Below, the task is to find such proofs. For this to make sense, we need to agree on what is meant by formula and by proof.
Double Negation [7]
Ex Falso Quodlibet [8]
Implication [9]
Tertium Non Datur [10]
Also show the directions from right to left (which are easier).
Negated Implication [11]
Negated Conjunction [12]
Negated Disjunction [13]
Implication again [14]
…
…
In many of the our proofs we used double negation, that is, . These proofs are also known as proofs by contradiction or indirect proofs.
The logic in which one removes double negation is called intuitionistic logic.
It is interesting to think about whether it is possible to replace our proofs by contradiction with constructive proofs, that is, proofs that do not use double negation, that is, proofs in intuitionistic logic.
The answer is no, but for this we would need to find an interpretation of intuitionistic logic that provides a counter example of double negation.
Maybe more on this later …
The following are not "proper" RAA, but just negation-introduction (ie the proof of a negated statement):
… (here we use some other assumptions we made)
(now we have a contradiction between and )
(and we conclude )
More generally,
(assumption)
… (proof continues)
(found a contradiction)
(conclude the negation of )
On the other hand,
…
contradiction
is a "proper" RAA proof. As one can see, in the latter case one additionally uses the principle of double negation, that is . (If one takes "liberal" RAA to include proofs such as the latter one, then one can derive double negation from RAA.) ↩︎
We also use this form of or-elimination:
Instead of we write for and, is or, the rules of the quantifiers for for all and for there is are not used in the following, instead of we write for implies and the funny mountain symbol is Gentzen's notation for contradiction (or falsum or false), today mostly written as . ↩︎
The video calls RAA what I call negation introduction and calls indirect proof what I call proper RAA and do in two steps via negation introduction and double negation elimination. ↩︎
(copying the , not needed)
The proof is strange in that the conclusion does not depend on . (Or, in other words, if we do not allow copying, the conclusion comes before the assumption in the deduction.) There is a logic, relevance logic, in which such proofs are not allowed. ↩︎
(uses Implication)
The other direction does not use double negation (proper RAA):
The other direction does not use double negation (proper RAA):
The other direction does not use double negation (proper RAA):
(uses Negated Disjunction and Double Negation)
The other direction does not use double negation (proper RAA):