Law of excluded middle - Knowledge (XXG)

5566: 3447: 141:, which states that every proposition is either true or false. The principle of bivalence always implies the law of excluded middle, while the converse is not always true. A commonly cited counterexample uses statements unprovable now, but provable in the future to show that the law of excluded middle may apply when the principle of bivalence fails. 2013:(Brouwer 1923 in van Heijenoort 1967:336). In general, intuitionists allow the use of the law of excluded middle when it is confined to discourse over finite collections (sets), but not when it is used in discourse over infinite sets (e.g. the natural numbers). Thus intuitionists absolutely disallow the blanket assertion: "For all propositions 441:

Let us give the name of "sense-data" to the things that are immediately known in sensation: such things as colours, sounds, smells, hardnesses, roughnesses, and so on. We shall give the name "sensation" to the experience of being immediately aware of these things … The colour itself is a sense-datum,

1936:

Davis means that "a proof that there actually are mathematic entities satisfying certain conditions would not have to provide a method to exhibit explicitly the entities in question." (p. 85). Such proofs presume the existence of a totality that is complete, a notion disallowed by intuitionists

2048:

as formalised in LP, have the law of excluded middle as a theorem, but resolve out the Liar as both true and false. In this way, the law of excluded middle is true, but because truth itself, and therefore disjunction, is not exclusive, it says next to nothing if one of the disjuncts is paradoxical,

1178:

From the first interpretation of negation, that is, the interdiction from regarding the judgment as true, it is impossible to obtain the certitude that the principle of excluded middle is true … Brouwer showed that in the case of such transfinite judgments the principle of excluded middle cannot be

1076:

The following highlights the deep mathematical and philosophic problem behind what it means to "know", and also helps elucidate what the "law" implies (i.e. what the law really means). Their difficulties with the law emerge: that they do not want to accept as true implications drawn from that which

942:

And finally constructivists … restricted mathematics to the study of concrete operations on finite or potentially (but not actually) infinite structures; completed infinite totalities … were rejected, as were indirect proof based on the Law of Excluded Middle. Most radical among the constructivists

2809:

In a comparative analysis (pp. 43–59) of the three "-isms" (and their foremost spokesmen)—Logicism (Russell and Whitehead), Intuitionism (Brouwer) and Formalism (Hilbert)—Kleene turns his thorough eye toward intuitionism, its "founder" Brouwer, and the intuitionists' complaints with respect to the

2780:

The original symbol as used by Reichenbach is an upside down V, nowadays used for AND. The AND for Reichenbach is the same as that used in Principia Mathematica – a "dot" cf p. 27 where he shows a truth table where he defines "a.b". Reichenbach defines the exclusive-or on p. 35 as "the negation of

185:

It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely "not being a man", if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. … And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call

882:

Kronecker insisted that there could be no existence without construction. For him, as for Paul Gordan , Hilbert's proof of the finiteness of the basis of the invariant system was simply not mathematics. Hilbert, on the other hand, throughout his life was to insist that if one can prove that the

2012:

both give examples of the law of excluded middle extended to the infinite. Hilbert's example: "the assertion that either there are only finitely many prime numbers or there are infinitely many" (quoted in Davis 2000:97); and Brouwer's: "Every mathematical species is either finite or infinite."

221:

But Aristotle also writes, "since it is impossible that contradictories should be at the same time true of the same thing, obviously contraries also cannot belong at the same time to the same thing" (Book IV, CH 6, p. 531). He then proposes that "there cannot be an intermediate between

1147:

Hilbert's first axiom of negation, "anything follows from the false", made its appearance only with the rise of symbolic logic, as did the first axiom of implication … while … the axiom under consideration asserts something about the consequences of something impossible: we have to accept

1726:, for example, would not accept this argument without further support for that statement. This might come in the form of a proof that the number in question is in fact irrational (or rational, as the case may be); or a finite algorithm that could determine whether the number is rational. 1713: 1061:" had "carried more weight" than "the law of excluded middle and related theorems of the propositional calculus" (Dawson p. 156). He proposed his "system Σ … and he concluded by mentioning several applications of his interpretation. Among them were a proof of the consistency with 674:

Most of these theorems—in particular ✸2.1, ✸2.11, and ✸2.14—are rejected by intuitionism. These tools are recast into another form that Kolmogorov cites as "Hilbert's four axioms of implication" and "Hilbert's two axioms of negation" (Kolmogorov in van Heijenoort, p. 335).

424:

That is, when we judge (say) "this is red", what occurs is a relation of three terms, the mind, and "this", and "red". On the other hand, when we perceive "the redness of this", there is a relation of two terms, namely the mind and the complex object "the redness of this" (pp.

1037:

Since mathematical theorems are often proved by establishing that the negation would involve us in a contradiction, this third possibility which Brouwer suggested would throw into question many of the mathematical statements currently

947:

The rancorous debate continued through the early 1900s into the 1920s; in 1927 Brouwer complained about "polemicizing against it in sneering tones" (Brouwer in van Heijenoort, p. 492). But the debate was fertile: it resulted in

766:

is not exhaustive in its major terms and is therefore an inflated formula. This fact may perhaps explain why some people consider it unreasonable to write (29) with the inclusive-'or', and want to have it written with the sign of the

1093:, and in particular the principle of the reciprocity of the complementary species, that is, the principle that for every system the correctness of a property follows from the impossibility of the impossibility of this property. (335) 973:

According to Brouwer, a statement that an object exists having a given property means that, and is only proved, when a method is known which in principle at least will enable such an object to be found or constructed

2151:. Very few mathematicians work in areas which allow for The Law of Excluded Middle to be false, as it is not compatible with the standard axiomatic system, ZFC. Namely, it is not compatible with the Axiom of Choice. 1591: 362: 2781:

the equivalence". One sign used nowadays is a circle with a + in it, i.e. ⊕ (because in binary, a ⊕ b yields modulo-2 addition – addition without carry). Other signs are ≢ (not identical to), or ≠ (not equal to).

2469: 2319: 954:(1910–1913), and that work gave a precise definition to the law of excluded middle, and all this provided an intellectual setting and the tools necessary for the mathematicians of the early 20th century: 958:

Out of the rancor, and spawned in part by it, there arose several important logical developments; Zermelo's axiomatization of set theory (1908a), that was followed two years later by the first volume of

2135:

is not an example of a statement that cannot be true or false. The law of excluded middle still holds here as the negation of this statement "This statement is not false", can be assigned true. In

2061:(tetralemma) is an ancient alternative to the law of excluded middle, which examines all four possible assignments of truth values to a proposition and its negation. It has been important in 1026:." (this was missing a closing quote) For finite sets, therefore, Brouwer accepted the principle of the excluded middle as valid. He refused to accept it for infinite sets because if the set 2376: 186:"man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact. ( 386:

if it is false* … the truth-value of "p ∨ q" is truth if the truth-value of either p or q is truth, and is falsehood otherwise … that of "~ p" is the opposite of that of p …" (pp. 7–8)

1821: 1549: 2080:. Instead of a proposition's being either true or false, a proposition is either true or not able to be proved true. These two dichotomies only differ in logical systems that are not 1252:

is true by virtue of its form alone. That is, the "middle" position, that Socrates is neither mortal nor not-mortal, is excluded by logic, and therefore either the first possibility (

1507: 1403: 2249: 3282:, reprinted in Great Books of the Western World Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 35, 1952, p. 449 ff. This work was published by Hume in 1758 as his rewrite of his "juvenile" 2139:, such a self-referential paradox can be constructed by examining the set "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves". This set is unambiguously defined, but leads to a 690:, that is, the principle that for every system the correctness of a property follows from the impossibility of the impossibility of this property" (Brouwer, ibid, p. 335). 888:

It was his contention that nothing could be said to have mathematical existence unless it could actually be constructed with a finite number of positive integers (Reid p. 26)

3945: 1855: 1579: 1470: 1440: 1894: 1363: 1089:

On the basis of the testability just mentioned, there hold, for properties conceived within a specific finite main system, the "principle of excluded middle", that is,

4620: 818: 175:

book 3, saying that it is necessary in every case to affirm or deny, and that it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction.

1927: 3202:, Cambridge at the University Press 1962 (Second Edition of 1927, reprinted). Extremely difficult because of arcane symbolism, but a must-have for serious logicians. 1335: 1159:

Hilbert's second axiom of negation expresses the principle of excluded middle. The principle is expressed here in the form in which is it used for derivations: if

1030:

is infinite, we cannot—even in principle—examine each member of the set. If, during the course of our examination, we find a member of the set with the property

390:

This is not much help. But later, in a much deeper discussion ("Definition and systematic ambiguity of Truth and Falsehood" Chapter II part III, p. 41 ff),

1782: 1762: 1308: 1288: 1065:

of the principle ~ (∀A: (A ∨ ~A)) (despite the inconsistency of the assumption ∃ A: ~ (A ∨ ~A))" (Dawson, p. 157) (no closing parenthesis had been placed)

1054:

proposed a solution: "that the negation of a universal proposition was to be understood as asserting the existence … of a counterexample" (Dawson, p. 157)

410:'red' is a sense-datum", and they "stand in relation" to one another and in relation to "I". Thus what we really mean is: "I perceive that 'This object a is red 4703: 3844: 2147:, this type of contradiction is no longer admitted. Furthermore, paradoxes of self reference can be constructed without even invoking negation at all, as in 1989:), but not in general the intuitionistic … the classical meaning, that somewhere in the completed infinite totality of the natural numbers there occurs an 1068:

The debate seemed to weaken: mathematicians, logicians and engineers continue to use the law of excluded middle (and double negation) in their daily work.

2587: 2483: – Foundational controversy in twentieth-century mathematics: an account on the formalist-intuitionist divide around the Law of the excluded middle 3232:, Littlefield, Adams & Co., Totowa, New Jersey, 1974 edition (first published 1968). Includes a wonderful essay on "The Art of drawing Inferences". 3343: 169:

propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false. He also states it as a principle in the

3262:, Copernicus: Springer–Verlag New York, Inc. 1996, first published 1969. Contains a wealth of biographical information, much derived from interviews. 5595: 3543: 717:), and by the definition of implication (i.e. 1.01 p → q = ~p ∨ q) then ~p ∨ ~(~p)= p → ~(~p). QED (The derivation of 2.14 is a bit more involved.) 1041:"Taking the Principle of the Excluded Middle from the mathematician," Hilbert said, "is the same as … prohibiting the boxer the use of his fists." 883:

attributes assigned to a concept will never lead to a contradiction, the mathematical existence of the concept is thereby established (Reid p. 34)

5017: 222:

contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate" (Book IV, CH 7, p. 531). In the context of Aristotle's

1708:{\displaystyle a^{b}=\left({\sqrt {2}}^{\sqrt {2}}\right)^{\sqrt {2}}={\sqrt {2}}^{\left({\sqrt {2}}\cdot {\sqrt {2}}\right)}={\sqrt {2}}^{2}=2} 1044:"The possible loss did not seem to bother Weyl … Brouwer's program was the coming thing, he insisted to his friends in Zürich." (Reid, p. 149) 5175: 3284:

Treatise of Human Nature: Being An attempt to introduce the experimental method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects Vol. I, Of The Understanding

2685: 2178:

and "∨" is a "max operator", then the law can be expressed in the object language by (P ∨ ~P ∨ ~~P ∨ ... ∨ ~...~P), where "~...~" represents

303: 3963: 963:, in which Russell and Whitehead showed how, via the theory of types: much of arithmetic could be developed by logicist means (Dawson p. 49) 5030: 4353: 2382: 2269: 2649: 980:"pure existence proofs have been the most important landmarks in the historical development of our science," he maintained. (Reid p. 155) 3316: 2979: 2928: 4615: 2790:

This well-known example of a non-constructive proof depending on the law of excluded middle can be found in many places, for example:

627:) (If it's true that "If this rose is red then this pig flies" then it's true that "If this pig doesn't fly then this rose isn't red.") 5035: 5025: 4762: 3968: 4513: 3959: 2123:. It is possible in logic to make well-constructed propositions that can be neither true nor false; a common example of this is the " 194:

Aristotle's assertion that "it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing" would be written in propositional logic as ~(

5171: 3171: 3090: 2880: 394:

defines truth and falsehood in terms of a relationship between the "a" and the "b" and the "percipient". For example "This 'a' is 'b

260: 3750: 1077:

is unverifiable (untestable, unknowable) or from the impossible or the false. (All quotes are from van Heijenoort, italics added).

5268: 5012: 3837: 3067: 3043: 2557: 4573: 4266: 4007: 2480: 2144: 1034:, the first alternative is substantiated; but if we never find such a member, the second alternative is still not substantiated. 3030: 609:) (One of the four "Principles of transposition". Similar to 1.03, 1.16 and 1.17. A very long demonstration was required here.) 800:

In line (30) the "(x)" means "for all" or "for every", a form used by Russell and Reichenbach; today the symbolism is usually

5529: 5231: 4994: 4989: 4814: 4235: 3919: 3811: 3416: 3371: 254:

Its usual form, "Every judgment is either true or false" …"(from Kolmogorov in van Heijenoort, p. 421) footnote 9: "This is

155: 31: 1722:

In the above argument, the assertion "this number is either rational or irrational" invokes the law of excluded middle. An

1057:

Gödel's approach to the law of excluded middle was to assert that objections against "the use of 'impredicative definitions

5524: 5307: 5224: 4937: 4868: 4745: 3987: 3801: 3336: 2897: 242: 4595: 967:

Brouwer reduced the debate to the use of proofs designed from "negative" or "non-existence" versus "constructive" proof:

446:

Russell further described his reasoning behind his definitions of "truth" and "falsehood" in the same book (Chapter XII,

5449: 5275: 4961: 4194: 3609: 3497: 3078: 2100: 4600: 2092:. In these systems, the programmer is free to assert the law of excluded middle as a true fact, but it is not built-in 2001:), is not available to him, since he does not conceive the natural numbers as a completed totality. (Kleene 1952:49–50) 4932: 4671: 3929: 3830: 3650: 1409:

Clearly (excluded middle) this number is either rational or irrational. If it is rational, the proof is complete, and

5327: 5322: 2325: 938:

does not exist", and was thereby invoking the law of excluded middle cast into the form of the law of contradiction.

893: 5256: 4846: 4240: 4208: 3899: 3624: 3614: 3517: 2820: 3973: 859:

From the late 1800s through the 1930s, a bitter, persistent debate raged between Hilbert and his followers versus

5546: 5495: 5392: 4890: 4851: 4328: 3665: 3655: 3406: 2510: 255: 5387: 4002: 2576: – view that a proposition about the future is either necessarily true, or its negation is necessarily true 850:(For all instances of "pig" seen and unseen): ("Pig does fly" or "Pig does not fly" but not both simultaneously) 5590: 5317: 4856: 4708: 4691: 4414: 3894: 3634: 3629: 3619: 3329: 1787: 1515: 900:

from the Second International Conference in Paris in 1900) evolved from this debate (italics in the original):

1479: 1375: 5219: 5196: 5157: 5043: 4984: 4630: 4550: 4394: 4338: 3951: 3765: 3675: 3670: 3660: 3512: 3071:, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1952. Cited as GB 8. 1st published, W.D. Ross (trans.), 3062: 3054: 3038: 2499: 2494: 2219: 171: 81: 5509: 5236: 5214: 5181: 5074: 4920: 4905: 4878: 4829: 4713: 4648: 4473: 4439: 4434: 4308: 4139: 4116: 3740: 3583: 3522: 3507: 3466: 3191: 2753: 2520: 2487: 468:

Whitehead and Russell derive some of the most powerful tools in the logician's argumentation toolkit. (In

289: 181:

wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the facts themselves:

138: 210:), through distribution of the negation in Aristotle's assertion. The former claims that no statement is 5439: 5292: 5084: 4802: 4538: 4444: 4303: 4288: 4169: 4144: 3806: 3604: 3578: 3563: 3548: 3426: 2009: 950: 463: 294: 42: 5565: 2107:

have also contested the usefulness of the law of excluded middle in the context of modern mathematics.

989:

Brouwer refused to accept the logical principle of the excluded middle, His argument was the following:

897: 2819:

For more about the conflict between the intuitionists (e.g. Brouwer) and the formalists (Hilbert) see

1083:

offers his definition of "principle of excluded middle"; we see here also the issue of "testability":

5412: 5374: 5251: 5055: 4895: 4819: 4797: 4625: 4583: 4482: 4449: 4313: 4101: 4012: 3796: 3568: 3421: 3122:

On the significance of the principle of excluded middle in mathematics, especially in function theory

2252: 2140: 2081: 1175:

is true. Its usual form, "every judgment is either true or false" is equivalent to that given above".

1062: 1263:

An example of an argument that depends on the law of excluded middle follows. We seek to prove that

202:). In modern so called classical logic, this statement is equivalent to the law of excluded middle ( 5541: 5432: 5417: 5397: 5354: 5241: 5191: 5117: 5062: 4999: 4792: 4787: 4735: 4503: 4492: 4164: 4064: 3992: 3983: 3979: 3914: 3909: 3770: 3573: 3538: 3401: 3106: 2573: 2507: – Splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts; dyadic relations and processes 2263: 2213: 2160: 2085: 2077: 1830: 1554: 1445: 1415: 1239: 741: 730: 664: 281: 97: 1860: 5570: 5339: 5302: 5287: 5280: 5263: 5049: 4915: 4841: 4824: 4777: 4590: 4499: 4333: 4318: 4278: 4230: 4215: 4203: 4159: 4134: 3904: 3853: 3715: 3588: 3481: 3476: 3376: 3366: 3272:, Hyperion, New York, 1993. Fuzzy thinking at its finest but a good introduction to the concepts. 3034: 2960: 2209: 2127:", the statement "this statement is false", which is argued to itself be neither true nor false. 2120: 2116: 2058: 1344: 472:

formulas and propositions are identified by a leading asterisk and two numbers, such as "✸2.1".)

38: 5067: 4523: 3775: 3145:, Although not directly germane, in his (1923) Brouwer uses certain words defined in this paper. 2148: 2037: 1784:

that satisfy the theorem but only two separate possibilities, one of which must work. (Actually

733:

used in his law (3). And this is the point of Reichenbach's demonstration that some believe the

567:) (Principle of double negation, part 1: if "this rose is red" is true then it's not true that 5505: 5312: 5122: 5112: 5004: 4885: 4720: 4696: 4477: 4461: 4366: 4343: 4220: 4189: 4154: 4049: 3884: 3471: 3381: 3167: 3159: 3086: 2876: 2870: 2681: 2530: 2089: 1268: 872: 803: 223: 160: 131: 89: 3113:, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967. Reprinted with corrections, 1977. 2624: 2186:−1 disjunction signs. It is easy to check that the sentence must receive at least one of the 1973:). Under both the classical and the intuitionistic logic, by reductio ad absurdum this gives 1899: 5519: 5514: 5407: 5364: 5186: 5147: 5142: 5127: 4953: 4910: 4807: 4605: 4555: 4129: 4091: 3755: 3745: 3710: 3431: 3235: 3225: 3215: 3205: 3195: 3026: 2994: 2952: 2851: 2757: 1736: 1366: 864: 683: 285: 1313: 88:; however, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provides 5500: 5490: 5444: 5427: 5382: 5344: 5246: 5166: 4973: 4900: 4873: 4861: 4767: 4681: 4655: 4610: 4578: 4379: 4181: 4124: 4074: 4039: 3997: 3791: 3695: 3352: 3291: 3245: 3096: 2847: 2548: 2175: 127: 85: 2603: 1827:(Constructive proofs of the specific example above are not hard to produce; for example 5485: 5464: 5422: 5402: 5297: 5152: 4750: 4740: 4730: 4725: 4659: 4533: 4409: 4298: 4293: 4271: 3872: 3735: 3391: 3255: 3222:, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997 edition (first published 1912). Easy to read. 3177: 3022: 2066: 1767: 1747: 1293: 1273: 943:

were the intuitionists, led by the erstwhile topologist L. E. J. Brouwer (Dawson p. 49)

77: 2998: 2606: – Axiom used in logic and philosophy: another way of turning intuition classical 1961:), the classical mathematician may deduce a contradiction from the assumption for all 5584: 5459: 5137: 4644: 4429: 4419: 4389: 4374: 4044: 3760: 3725: 3720: 3558: 3181: 2563: 2534: 2533: – Propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values such as 2104: 2041: 2005: 429:

Russell reiterated his distinction between "sense-datum" and "sensation" in his book

166: 1216:

where ∨ means "or". The equivalence of the two forms is easily proved (p. 421)

5359: 5206: 5107: 5099: 4979: 4927: 4836: 4772: 4755: 4686: 4545: 4404: 4106: 3889: 3730: 3705: 3700: 3553: 3312: 2824: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2062: 2033: 1723: 1091:

the principle that for every system every property is either correct or impossible

868: 860: 785: 734: 726: 679: 93: 65: 2855: 2675: 2076:

Many modern logic systems replace the law of excluded middle with the concept of

5469: 5349: 4528: 4518: 4465: 4149: 4069: 4054: 3934: 3879: 3396: 3386: 3162:

1952 original printing, 1971 6th printing with corrections, 10th printing 1991,

2838: 2600:

school of Buddhism, another system in which the law of excluded middle is untrue

2581: 2542: 2190: 2045: 791: 73: 61: 2943:

Priest, Graham (1983). "The Logical Paradoxes and the Law of Excluded Middle".

2143:: does the set contain, as one of its elements, itself? However, in the modern 1006:." If the set is finite, it is possible—in principle—to examine each member of 17: 4399: 4254: 4225: 4031: 3461: 3275: 3265: 3188:, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1962. Reprinted with corrections, 1975. 3127: 2761: 2593: 2136: 2070: 1823:

is irrational but there is no known easy proof of that fact.) (Davis 2000:220)

41:

notation. For a concise description of the symbols used in this notation, see

2810:

law of excluded middle as applied to arguments over the "completed infinite".

913:

To show the significance of this problem, he added the following observation:

5551: 5454: 4507: 4424: 4384: 4348: 4284: 4096: 4086: 4059: 3436: 3058: 3050: 3047:, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1952. Cited as GB 19–20. 2767: 2504: 750:

About this issue (in admittedly very technical terms) Reichenbach observes:

178: 1953:

existence proofs, which intuitionists do not accept. For example, to prove

5536: 5334: 4782: 4487: 4081: 3411: 2793: 2159:

Some systems of logic have different but analogous laws. For some finite

1247:

Either Socrates is mortal, or it is not the case that Socrates is mortal.

1051: 420:

further defines a distinction between a "sense-datum" and a "sensation":

69: 226:, this is a remarkably precise statement of the law of excluded middle, 5132: 3924: 3149: 3138: 3117: 2964: 1744:

The proof is non-constructive because it doesn't give specific numbers

697:, pp. 101–102). From the law of excluded middle (✸2.1 and ✸2.11), 490:

The proof of ✸2.1 is roughly as follows: "primitive idea" 1.08 defines

357:{\displaystyle \mathbf {*2\cdot 11} .\ \ \vdash .\ p\ \vee \thicksim p} 277: 3212:. The William James Lectures for 1940 delivered at Harvard University. 725:

It is correct, at least for bivalent logic—i.e. it can be seen with a

693:

This principle is commonly called "the principle of double negation" (

3822: 2464:{\displaystyle (P\to (Q\lor \neg R))\to ((P\to Q)\lor (P\to \neg R))} 2956: 2314:{\displaystyle \neg (P\land Q)\,\leftrightarrow \,\neg P\lor \neg Q} 241:, Aristotle seems to deny the law of excluded middle in the case of 3111:

From Frege to Gödel, A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931

2084:. The principle of negation as failure is used as a foundation for 2032:

Putative counterexamples to the law of excluded middle include the

998:"Suppose that A is the statement "There exists a member of the set 910:

of the consistency of the axioms of the arithmetic of real numbers.

154:

The earliest known formulation is in Aristotle's discussion of the

4676: 4022: 3867: 3321: 2923: 1072:

Intuitionist definitions of the law (principle) of excluded middle

916:"If contradictory attributes be assigned to a concept, I say that 538:

is true (this is Theorem 2.08, which is proved separately), then ~

112: 49: 3220:

The Problems of Philosophy, With a New Introduction by John Perry

2255:, which is sometimes called the law of the weak excluded middle. 1981:). The classical logic allows this result to be transformed into 892:

The debate had a profound effect on Hilbert. Reid indicates that

3446: 214:

true and false, while the latter requires that any statement is

3826: 3325: 3083:

Engines of Logic: Mathematicians and the Origin of the Computer

2566: – Type of diagrammatic notation for propositional logic 2119:, the excluded middle has been argued to result in possible 1201:

footnote 10: "Symbolically the second form is expressed thus

1182:

footnote 9: "This is Leibniz's very simple formulation (see

2069:

as well as the ancient Greek philosophical school known as

823:. Thus an example of the expression would look like this: 3166:, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, New York, 2872:"Proof and Knowledge in Mathematics" by Michael Detlefsen 1050:

In his lecture in 1941 at Yale and the subsequent paper,

790:

in which form it would be fully exhaustive and therefore

137:

The principle should not be confused with the semantical

367:

So just what is "truth" and "falsehood"? At the opening

2598: