Principle of explosion

You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.

Jump to: navigation, search

The principle of explosion (also known as ex falso quodlibet, ex falso sequitur quodlibet (EFSQ for short), ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ for short), and ex falso/contradictione (sequitur) aliquot) is the law of classical logic and a few other systems, for example, intuitionistic logic, according to which "anything follows from a contradiction". In symbolic terms, the principle of explosion can be expressed in the following way:

\{ \phi , \lnot \phi \} \vdash \psi.

Here, "\vdash" symbolizes the relation of logical consequence.

Contents

Arguments for explosion

There are two basic kinds of argument for the principle of explosion.

The semantic argument

The first argument is semantic or model-theoretic in nature. A sentence ψ is a semantic consequence of a set of sentences Γ just in case every model of Γ is a model of ψ. But there is no model of the contradictory set \{\phi , \lnot \phi \}. A fortiori, there is no model of \{\phi , \lnot \phi \} that is not a model of ψ. Thus, vacuously, every model of \{\phi , \lnot \phi \} is a model of ψ. Thus ψ is a semantic consequence of \{\phi , \lnot \phi \}.

The proof-theoretic argument

The second type of argument is proof-theoretic in nature. Consider the following derivations:

  1. \phi \wedge \neg \phi\,
    assumption
  2. \phi\,
    from (1) by conjunction elimination
  3. \neg \phi\,
    from (1) by conjunction elimination
  4. \phi \vee \psi\,
    from (2) by disjunction introduction
  5. \psi\,
    from (3) and (4) by disjunctive syllogism
  6. (\phi \wedge \neg \phi) \to \psi
    from (5) by conditional proof (discharging assumption 1)

Or:

  1. \phi \wedge \neg \phi\,
    assumption
  2. \neg \psi\,
    assumption
  3. \phi\,
    from (1) by conjunction elimination
  4. \neg \phi\,
    from (1) by conjunction elimination
  5. \neg \neg \psi\,
    from (3) and (4) by reductio ad absurdum (discharging assumption 2)
  6. \psi\,
    from (5) by double negation elimination
  7. (\phi \wedge \neg \phi) \to \psi
    from (6) by conditional proof (discharging assumption 1)

Or:

  1. \phi \wedge \neg \phi\,
    hypothesis
  2. \phi\,
    from (1) by conjunction elimination
  3. \neg \phi\,
    from (1) by conjunction elimination
  4. \neg \psi\,
    hypothesis
  5. \phi\,
    reiteration of (2)
  6. \neg \psi \to \phi
    from (4) to (5) by deduction theorem
  7. ( \neg \phi \to \neg \neg \psi)
    from (6) by contraposition
  8. \neg \neg \psi
    from (3) and (6) by modus ponens
  9. \psi\,
    from (8) by double negation elimination
  10. (\phi \wedge \neg \phi) \to \psi
    from (1) to (9) by deduction theorem

Rejecting the principle

Proponents of paraconsistent logic reject the principle of explosion, and thus must find flaw with both of the arguments above. As for the semantic argument, paraconsistent logicians often deny the assumption that there can be no model of \{\phi , \lnot \phi \} and devise semantical systems in which there are such models. As for the proof-theoretic arguments, they commonly reject disjunctive syllogism on the ground that it does not hold when applied to inconsistent situations. As well is common to deny the use of reductio ad absurdum in this way, on the grounds that even though a contradiction was derived while assuming a certain proposition, if that proposition was not used in the derivation, it is still not valid to derive its negation.

See also

External link

uk:Принцип вибухуit:ex falso quodlibet


WikiDoc Help Menu

Quick Start..

Editing basics

Advanced editing

Communicating your edits

Help Videos You Can Watch

Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content

Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .

Retrieved from "http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Principle_of_explosion"
Personal tools
In other languages