| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
Besides the general prima facie implausibility of contradictions, this is the primary logical argument for not allowing P ∧ ¬P to be true in a formal system: systems in which any arbitrary formula is a theorem are trivial. Thus explosion justifies the law of noncontradiction.
Explosion is based on several of the fundamental formal properties of disjunction, the logical operator corresponding to the English "or". Consider the following proof:
| (1) P ∧ ¬P | By assumption |
| (2) P | By (1) and conjunction elimination |
| (3) P ∨ A | By (2) and disjunction introduction |
| (4) ¬P | By (1) and conjunction elimination |
| (5) A | By (3), (4), and disjunctive syllogism |
Subscribers to paraconsistent logics reject the above reasoning, usually citing the invalidity of either disjunction introduction or disjunctive syllogism. Dialetheism, one particular paraconsistent logic, rejects the argument in order to accept certain instances of P ∧ ¬P.