I would like to prove formally that : ~ ( a is less than b or equal to b) is equivalent to ( a is strictly greater than b ).
But I cannot get rid of a redundant conjoint at the end of the proof.
Other problem: at line (3) I seem obliged to admit trichotomy law. But is not assuming this law tentamount to reasoning circularly?
Which proposition should be taken as primitive in order not to fall into circularity?
~ ( a is strictly less than b OR a is equal to b)
<==> ~ (a < b) & ~(a = b)
<==> (a > b or a = b) & ~( a = b)
<==> (a > b & ~ a = b ) OR ( a=b & ~ a = b)
<==> (a > b & ~ a = b) OR FALSE
<==> (a > b & ~ a=b)
But it is trichotomy law :
Rewrite it as : $(a < b \lor a=b) \lor (a > b)$ and using Material Implication rule we get :
And vice versa.