Which first order logic logic equivalences are not valid in intuitionistic logic?












0














I know that --A == A and -(A / B) == -A or -B don't hold in intuitionistic logic. Which are the relatives first order logic equivalence that don't hold in intuitionistic logic?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • See Intuitionistic logic.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:20






  • 2




    For example, it is not true that $lnot forall x lnot Px$ is equivalent to $exists x Px$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:23






  • 2




    There are lots of examples. For examples, some kind of de Morgan's law $lnot (Aland B)to lnot Alor lnot B$ is not valid. $Ato B$ no longer implies $lnot Alor B$. You may find some examples by considering a statement under BHK interpretation.
    – Hanul Jeon
    Jan 4 at 11:30
















0














I know that --A == A and -(A / B) == -A or -B don't hold in intuitionistic logic. Which are the relatives first order logic equivalence that don't hold in intuitionistic logic?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • See Intuitionistic logic.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:20






  • 2




    For example, it is not true that $lnot forall x lnot Px$ is equivalent to $exists x Px$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:23






  • 2




    There are lots of examples. For examples, some kind of de Morgan's law $lnot (Aland B)to lnot Alor lnot B$ is not valid. $Ato B$ no longer implies $lnot Alor B$. You may find some examples by considering a statement under BHK interpretation.
    – Hanul Jeon
    Jan 4 at 11:30














0












0








0







I know that --A == A and -(A / B) == -A or -B don't hold in intuitionistic logic. Which are the relatives first order logic equivalence that don't hold in intuitionistic logic?










share|cite|improve this question













I know that --A == A and -(A / B) == -A or -B don't hold in intuitionistic logic. Which are the relatives first order logic equivalence that don't hold in intuitionistic logic?







first-order-logic






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 4 at 11:11









MaicakeMaicake

615




615












  • See Intuitionistic logic.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:20






  • 2




    For example, it is not true that $lnot forall x lnot Px$ is equivalent to $exists x Px$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:23






  • 2




    There are lots of examples. For examples, some kind of de Morgan's law $lnot (Aland B)to lnot Alor lnot B$ is not valid. $Ato B$ no longer implies $lnot Alor B$. You may find some examples by considering a statement under BHK interpretation.
    – Hanul Jeon
    Jan 4 at 11:30


















  • See Intuitionistic logic.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:20






  • 2




    For example, it is not true that $lnot forall x lnot Px$ is equivalent to $exists x Px$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Jan 4 at 11:23






  • 2




    There are lots of examples. For examples, some kind of de Morgan's law $lnot (Aland B)to lnot Alor lnot B$ is not valid. $Ato B$ no longer implies $lnot Alor B$. You may find some examples by considering a statement under BHK interpretation.
    – Hanul Jeon
    Jan 4 at 11:30
















See Intuitionistic logic.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 4 at 11:20




See Intuitionistic logic.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 4 at 11:20




2




2




For example, it is not true that $lnot forall x lnot Px$ is equivalent to $exists x Px$.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 4 at 11:23




For example, it is not true that $lnot forall x lnot Px$ is equivalent to $exists x Px$.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 4 at 11:23




2




2




There are lots of examples. For examples, some kind of de Morgan's law $lnot (Aland B)to lnot Alor lnot B$ is not valid. $Ato B$ no longer implies $lnot Alor B$. You may find some examples by considering a statement under BHK interpretation.
– Hanul Jeon
Jan 4 at 11:30




There are lots of examples. For examples, some kind of de Morgan's law $lnot (Aland B)to lnot Alor lnot B$ is not valid. $Ato B$ no longer implies $lnot Alor B$. You may find some examples by considering a statement under BHK interpretation.
– Hanul Jeon
Jan 4 at 11:30










0






active

oldest

votes











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061535%2fwhich-first-order-logic-logic-equivalences-are-not-valid-in-intuitionistic-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061535%2fwhich-first-order-logic-logic-equivalences-are-not-valid-in-intuitionistic-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

1300-talet

1300-talet

Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8