Principle of explosion
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. (December 2011)

The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)", or ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ), "from contradiction, anything (follows)"), or the principle of PseudoScotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.^{[1]} That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it.
As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements – “All lemons are yellow” and "Not all lemons are yellow", and suppose (for the sake of argument) that both are simultaneously true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g. "Santa Claus exists", by using the following argument:
 We know that "All lemons are yellow" as it is defined to be true.
 Therefore, the statement that (“All lemons are yellow" OR "Santa Claus exists”) must also be true, since the first part is true.
 However, if "Not all lemons are yellow" (and this is also defined to be true), Santa Claus must exist – otherwise statement 2 would be false. It has thus been "proven" that Santa Claus exists. The same could be applied to any assertion, including the statement "Santa Claus does not exist".
The principle is not a universal rule; rather it exists as a consequence of a choice of which logic to use. It does not appear in some paraconsistent logics which allow localised 'gluts' of contradictory statements to be proved without affecting other proofs. In artificial intelligence and models of human reasoning it is common for such logics to be used. Truth maintenance systems are AI models which try to capture this process.
Contents
Symbolic representation
The principle of explosion can be expressed in the following way (where "" symbolizes the relation of logical consequence and "" symbolizes a contradiction) :
 or
 .
This can be read as, "If one claims something () and its negation (), one can logically derive any conclusion ()."
Arguments for explosion
An informal, descriptive, argument is given above. In more formal terms, there are two kinds of argument for the principle of explosion, semantic and prooftheoretic.
The semantic argument
The first argument is semantic or modeltheoretic in nature. A sentence is a semantic consequence of a set of sentences only if every model of is a model of . But there is no model of the contradictory set . A fortiori, there is no model of that is not a model of . Thus, vacuously, every model of is a model of . Thus is a semantic consequence of .
The prooftheoretic argument
The second type of argument is prooftheoretic in nature. Consider the following derivations:

 assumption

 from (1) by conjunction elimination

 from (1) by conjunction elimination

 from (2) by disjunction introduction

 from (3) and (4) by disjunctive syllogism

 from (5) by conditional proof (discharging assumption 1)
This is just the symbolic version of the informal argument given above, with standing for "all lemons are yellow" and standing for "Santa Claus exists". From "all lemons are yellow and not all lemons are yellow" (1), we infer "all lemons are yellow" (2) and "not all lemons are yellow" (3); from "all lemons are yellow" (2), we infer "all lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists" (4); and from "not all lemons are yellow" (3) and "all lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists" (4), we infer "Santa Claus exists" (5). Hence, if all lemons are yellow and not all lemons are yellow, then Santa Claus exists.
Or:

 hypothesis

 from (1) by conjunction elimination

 from (1) by conjunction elimination

 hypothesis

 reiteration of (2)

 from (4) to (5) by deduction theorem

 from (6) by contraposition

 from (3) and (7) by modus ponens

 from (8) by double negation elimination

 from (1) to (9) by deduction theorem
Or:

 assumption

 assumption

 from (1) by conjunction elimination

 from (1) by conjunction elimination

 from (3) and (4) by reductio ad absurdum (discharging assumption 2)

 from (5) by double negation elimination

 from (6) by conditional proof (discharging assumption 1)
Addressing the principle
Paraconsistent logics have been developed that allow for subcontrary forming operators. Modeltheoretic paraconsistent logicians often deny the assumption that there can be no model of and devise semantical systems in which there are such models. Alternatively, they reject the idea that propositions can be classified as true or false. Prooftheoretic paraconsistent logics usually deny the validity of one of the steps necessary for deriving an explosion, typically including disjunctive syllogism, disjunction introduction, and reductio ad absurdum.
Use
The metamathematical value of the principle of explosion is that for any logical system where this principle holds, any derived theory which proves ⊥ (or an equivalent form, ) is worthless because all its statements would become theorems, making it impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood. That is to say, the principle of explosion is an argument for the law of noncontradiction in classical logic, because without it all truth statements become meaningless.
See also
 Consequentia mirabilis – Clavius's Law
 Dialetheism – belief in the existence of true contradictions
 Law of excluded middle – every proposition is either true or not true
 Law of noncontradiction – no proposition can be both true and not true
 Paraconsistent logic – a family of logics used to address contradictions
 Paradox of entailment – a seeming paradox derived from the principle of explosion
 Reductio ad absurdum – concluding that a proposition is false because it produces a contradiction
 Trivialism – the belief that all statements of the form "P and notP" are true
References
 ↑ Carnielli, W. and Marcos, J. (2001) "Ex contradictione non sequitur quodlibet" Proc. 2nd Conf. on Reasoning and Logic (Bucharest, July 2000)