diff --git a/library/logic/examples/cont.lean b/library/logic/examples/cont.lean
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e8776600f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/library/logic/examples/cont.lean
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+/-
+Copyright (c) 2015 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
+Released under Apache 2.0 license as described in the file LICENSE.
+
+Author: Leonardo de Moura
+
+Formalization of Theorem 1 from the following paper:
+"The inconsistency of a Brouwerian continuity
+principle with the Curry–Howard interpretation"
+by Martín Escardó and Chuangjie Xu
+-/
+import data.nat
+open nat sigma.ops
+
+/- Bounded equality: α and β agree in the first n positions. -/
+definition beq (α β : nat → nat) (n : nat) : Prop :=
+∀ a, a < n → α a = β a
+
+notation α `=[`:50 n:50 `]` β:50 := beq α β n
+
+lemma pred_beq {α β : nat → nat} {n : nat} : α =[n+1] β → α =[n] β :=
+λ h a altn, h a (lt.step altn)
+
+definition continuous (f : (nat → nat) → nat) : Type₁ :=
+∀ α, Σ n, ∀ β, α =[n] β → f α = f β
+
+definition zω : nat → nat :=
+λ x, zero
+
+definition znkω (n : nat) (k : nat) : nat → nat :=
+λ x, if x < n then 0 else k
+
+lemma znkω_succ (n : nat) (k : nat) : znkω (n+1) k 0 = 0 :=
+rfl
+
+lemma znkω_bound (n : nat) (k : nat) : znkω n k n = k :=
+if_neg !lt.irrefl
+
+lemma zω_eq_znkω (n : nat) (k : nat) : zω =[n] znkω n k :=
+λ a altn, begin esimp [zω, znkω], rewrite [if_pos altn] end
+
+section
+hypothesis all_continuous : ∀ f, continuous f
+
+definition M (f : (nat → nat) → nat) : nat :=
+(all_continuous f zω).1
+
+lemma M_spec (f : (nat → nat) → nat) : ∀ β, zω =[M f] β → f zω = f β :=
+(all_continuous f zω).2
+
+definition m := M (λα, zero)
+
+definition f β :=  M (λα, β (α m))
+
+lemma β0_eq (β : nat → nat) : ∀ α, zω =[f β] α → β 0 = β (α m) :=
+λ α, M_spec (λα, β (α m)) α
+
+lemma not_all_continuous : false :=
+let β := znkω (M f + 1) 1 in
+let α := znkω m (M f + 1) in
+assert βeq₁ : zω =[M f + 1] β, from
+  λ (a : nat) (h : a < M f + 1), begin esimp [zω, znkω], rewrite [if_pos h] end,
+assert βeq₂    : zω =[M f] β,                    from pred_beq βeq₁,
+assert m_eq_fβ : m = f β,                        from M_spec f β βeq₂,
+assert aux     : ∀ α, zω =[m] α → β 0 = β (α m), by rewrite m_eq_fβ at {1}; exact (β0_eq β),
+assert zero_eq_one : 0 = 1, from calc
+  0   = β 0         : by rewrite znkω_succ
+  ... = β (α m)     : aux α (zω_eq_znkω m (M f + 1))
+  ... = β (M f + 1) : by rewrite znkω_bound
+  ... = 1           : by rewrite znkω_bound,
+nat.no_confusion zero_eq_one
+end
+
+/-
+Additional remarks:
+By using the slightly different definition of continuous
+  ∀ α, ∃ n, ∀ β, α =[n] β → f α = f β
+i.e., using ∃ instead of Σ, we can assume the following axiom
+  all_continuous : ∀ f, continuous f
+However, the system becomes inconsistent again if we also assume Hilbert's choice,
+because with Hilbert's choice we can convert ∃ into Σ
+-/