# Rule of Transposition/Variant 2/Formulation 1/Forward Implication

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

## Theorem

- $\neg p \implies q \vdash \neg q \implies p$

## Proof

By the tableau method of natural deduction:

Line | Pool | Formula | Rule | Depends upon | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 1 | $\neg p \implies q$ | Premise | (None) | ||

2 | 2 | $\neg q$ | Assumption | (None) | ||

3 | 1, 2 | $\neg \neg p$ | Modus Tollendo Tollens (MTT) | 1, 2 | ||

4 | 1, 2 | $p$ | Double Negation Elimination: $\neg \neg \EE$ | 3 | ||

5 | 1 | $\neg q \implies p$ | Rule of Implication: $\implies \II$ | 2 – 4 | Assumption 2 has been discharged |

$\blacksquare$

#### Law of the Excluded Middle

This proof depends on the Law of the Excluded Middle, by way of Double Negation Elimination.

This is one of the axioms of logic that was determined by Aristotle, and forms part of the backbone of classical (Aristotelian) logic.

However, the intuitionist school rejects the Law of the Excluded Middle as a valid logical axiom.

This in turn invalidates this proof from an intuitionistic perspective.