I'm trying to prove this by using Hilbert systems:
(CA1) ⊢ A → (B → A)
(CA2) ⊢ (A → (B → C)) → ((A → B) → (A → C))
(CA3) ⊢ (¬A → ¬B) → (B → A)
(MP) A, A → B ⊢ B
Is there a specific approach to these things that i'm not seeing ?
here is my approach but it's always hard for me to carry on from it :
From the given i see $\Phi=\{a\rightarrow\neg{b}\}\vdash \neg{(b\rightarrow c)}\rightarrow \neg{a}.$ By using the deduction theorem we recieve $\Phi\cup \neg{(b\rightarrow c)} =\{a\rightarrow\neg{b},\neg{(b\rightarrow c)}\}\vdash\neg a$ which needs to be proved to show that the original logic proposition is true.
Here i get stuck ,i try to solve this by saying that $\neg{a}$ then i try to see the previous steps that i need to to make to reach $\neg{a}$ for example if i do modus ponens on $\varphi_1=\neg{(b\rightarrow c)}$ and $\varphi_2=\neg{(b\rightarrow c)}\rightarrow \neg{a}$ i will reach the end of the proof, but i think this is a bad approach for this. I need help with ways to approach these kind of proofs.
Here's a proof of a first-order proof using hyperresolution which correlates to a proof using condensed detachment from the theorem prover written by William McCune at Argonne National Laboratory. Also, instead of using infix notation, it uses prefix notation and letters. (x$\rightarrow$y) translates to C(x, y) and $\lnot$x translates to N(x):