Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The law of contradiction is provable from the remaining axioms of the intuitionistic system H without taking it as a primitive.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Negation can be defined as A implying 0 = 1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ex falso can be stated as '0 = 1 implies A'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The remaining axioms of H are sufficient to derive the law of contradiction given this definition of negation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42