Is there  an recursively axiomatized system with infinitely many proofs for some propositions or a proposition Is there  any recursively axiomized system with infinitely many proofs for some propositions or a proposition? So we will have at least one proposition which is  deduced from the recursively axiomatic system in infinite ways.Could any one give an example or proof?
EDIT:We define a proof or a reduced proof as one which could not omit any proposition  in the arguments,otherwise would be invalid. Or we can view it as question of formal language,that is :is there a formal language with at least one word which can be parsed in infinitely many ways?Of course there have to be no rewriting like "irrelevent padding or stupid detours"
 A: How about the theorem "There exists at least one prime number?" There are infinitely many distinct proofs of this result, none of which includes another as a subproof. Certainly this example is trivial in some sense, but I think it is not obvious how to pin down why this shouldn't be counted.
Perhaps a better example is "There is at least one Turing machine which halts." Now - in a precise sense - any possible logical deduction is paralleled by a proof that some specific machine halts, so if there are infinitely many "distinct" deductions at all, then there are infinitely many "distinct" proofs of this proposition.
EDIT: This is entirely tangential, but I think you may find it interesting. There is a strong and fruitful tradition in mathematical logic - especially on the constructive side - of drawing analogies between (or equating) proofs and algorithms; so an at-least-vaguely related question is, "How do we tell if two algorithms are the same?" This paper (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gurevich/Opera/192.pdf) by Andreas Blass, Nachum Dershowitz, and Yuri Gurevich argues that there is no entirely satisfactory answer to this question. I think at least one thing to take away from this is that one should not be cavalier about the notion of "distinct proof": finding a satisfactory such notion would be a huge advancement in logic!
A: In any of the usual axiomatic systems (ZF set theory, Peano arithmetic, etc.), any proposition that has a proof at all will have infinitely many.  The reason is that you can add irrelevant padding or stupid detours to any argument.  To make a real question along these lines, you'd have to specify some notion of "genuinely different" proofs that prohibits such trivial variations.
A: The question of whether two proofs are essentially the same is sometimes called "proof identity".  It is an active topic in proof theory and there is an old MO thread with some references:
When are two proofs of the same theorem really different proofs
