This one, 
,
is more interesting:
Note the following details:
It isn't hard to understand why: 
 says that
if it happens 
, then happens 
, so the first
we should do is to suppose that 
 really does happen. Then we will
have to discover that, in this case when 
 is true, it is also
true 
. When we get that, we will apply the rule and write
everything politely: 
.
For that reason, at line 3 we make an hypothesis (justified by the
 at the right): suppose that 
 is true. Now we're starting
a subdemonstration, where we will be able to use the truths that were
on the father demonstration (lines 1 and 2 in this case), and also
we can use 
 as if it were another truth.
We made this hypothesis aiming to know that 
, so we deduce
it similarly to the previous exercises. Notice that we use truths
from inside and from outside the subdemonstration, and also that,
while we haven't finished it, that vertical line to the left must
be put.
In line 6 we now have 
, which is what we were looking
for. Using the implication introduction rule, we can go outside
this subdemonstration by saying that if the hypothesis is true,
then what we deduced from it also is true. We stop putting that vertical
line, since 
 is always true (it doesn't depend
on whether 
 is true or not). The justification we used, 
,
says that 3 is the line where we made the supposition, and 6 the line
where we discovered something interesting which happens when we make
that supposition.
 is what we wanted, so we have finished.
We finish as always, since we're outside any subdemonstration.
Daniel Clemente Laboreo 2005-05-17