Formal notation

The double negation introduction rule may be written in sequent notation:

${\displaystyle P\vdash \neg \neg P}$

The double negation elimination rule may be written as:

${\displaystyle \neg \neg P\vdash P}$

In rule form:

${\displaystyle {\frac {P}{\neg \neg P}}}$

and

${\displaystyle {\frac {\neg \neg P}{P}}}$

or as a tautology (plain propositional calculus sentence):

${\displaystyle P\to \neg \neg P}$

and

${\displaystyle \neg \neg P\to P}$

These can be combined into a single biconditional formula:

${\displaystyle \neg \neg P\leftrightarrow P}$.

Since biconditionality is an equivalence relation, any instance of ¬¬A in a well-formed formula can be replaced by A, leaving unchanged the truth-value of the well-formed formula.

Double negative elimination is a theorem of classical logic, but not of weaker logics such as intuitionistic logic and minimal logic. Double negation introduction is a theorem of both intuitionistic logic and minimal logic, as is ${\displaystyle \neg \neg \neg A\vdash \neg A}$.

Because of their constructive character, a statement such as It's not the case that it's not raining is weaker than It's raining. The latter requires a proof of rain, whereas the former merely requires a proof that rain would not be contradictory. This distinction also arises in natural language in the form of litotes.

In classical propositional calculus system

In Hilbert-style deductive systems for propositional logic, double negation is not always taken as an axiom (see list of Hilbert systems), and is rather a theorem. We describe a proof of this theorem in the system of three axioms proposed by Jan Łukasiewicz:

A1. ${\displaystyle \phi \to \left(\psi \to \phi \right)}$

A2. ${\displaystyle \left(\phi \to \left(\psi \rightarrow \xi \right)\right)\to \left(\left(\phi \to \psi \right)\to \left(\phi \to \xi \right)\right)}$

A3. ${\displaystyle \left(\lnot \phi \to \lnot \psi \right)\to \left(\psi \to \phi \right)}$

We use the lemma ${\displaystyle p\to p}$ proved here, which we refer to as (L1), and use the following additional lemma, proved here:

(L2) ${\displaystyle p\to ((p\to q)\to q)}$

We first prove ${\displaystyle \neg \neg p\to p}$. For shortness, we denote ${\displaystyle q\to (r\to q)}$ by φ₀. We also use repeatedly the method of the hypothetical syllogism metatheorem as a shorthand for several proof steps.

(1) ${\displaystyle \varphi _{0}}$       (instance of (A1))

(2) ${\displaystyle (\neg \neg \varphi _{0}\to \neg \neg p)\to (\neg p\to \neg \varphi _{0})}$       (instance of (A3))

(3) ${\displaystyle (\neg p\to \neg \varphi _{0})\to (\varphi _{0}\to p)}$       (instance of (A3))

(4) ${\displaystyle (\neg \neg \varphi _{0}\to \neg \neg p)\to (\varphi _{0}\to p)}$       (from (2) and (3) by the hypothetical syllogism metatheorem)

(5) ${\displaystyle \neg \neg p\to (\neg \neg \varphi _{0}\to \neg \neg p)}$       (instance of (A1))

(6) ${\displaystyle \neg \neg p\to (\varphi _{0}\to p)}$       (from (4) and (5) by the hypothetical syllogism metatheorem)

(7) ${\displaystyle \varphi _{0}\to ((\varphi _{0}\to p)\to p)}$       (instance of (L2))

(8) ${\displaystyle (\varphi _{0}\to p)\to p}$       (from (1) and (7) by modus ponens)

(9) ${\displaystyle \neg \neg p\to p}$       (from (6) and (8) by the hypothetical syllogism metatheorem)

We now prove ${\displaystyle p\to \neg \neg p}$.

(1) ${\displaystyle \neg \neg \neg p\to \neg p}$       (instance of the first part of the theorem we have just proven)

(2) ${\displaystyle (\neg \neg \neg p\to \neg p)\to (p\to \neg \neg p)}$       (instance of (A3))

(3) ${\displaystyle p\to \neg \neg p}$       (from (1) and (2) by modus ponens)

And the proof is complete.