Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or the validity of a proposition by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of nonconstructive proof as universally ...
This resolution technique uses proof by contradiction and is based on the fact that any sentence in propositional logic can be transformed into an equivalent sentence in conjunctive normal form. [4] The steps are as follows. All sentences in the knowledge base and the negation of the sentence to be proved (the conjecture) are conjunctively ...
Reductio ad absurdum, painting by John Pettie exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent, also known as Fermat's method of descent, is a particular kind of proof by contradiction [1] used to show that a statement cannot possibly hold for any number, by showing that if the statement were to hold for a number, then the same would be true for a smaller number, leading to an infinite descent and ultimately a contradiction. [2]
The proof of this principle was first given by 12th-century French philosopher William of Soissons. [6] Due to the principle of explosion, the existence of a contradiction ( inconsistency ) in a formal axiomatic system is disastrous; since any statement can be proven, it trivializes the concepts of truth and falsity. [ 7 ]
The example mapping f happens to correspond to the example enumeration s in the picture above. A generalized form of the diagonal argument was used by Cantor to prove Cantor's theorem: for every set S, the power set of S—that is, the set of all subsets of S (here written as P(S))—cannot be in bijection with S itself. This proof proceeds as ...
In classical real analysis, one way to define a real number is as an equivalence class of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers.. In constructive mathematics, one way to construct a real number is as a function ƒ that takes a positive integer and outputs a rational ƒ(n), together with a function g that takes a positive integer n and outputs a positive integer g(n) such that
(Note: This is the only place where the five-color condition is used in the proof. If this technique is used to prove the four-color theorem, it will fail on this step. In fact, an icosahedral graph is 5-regular and planar, and thus does not have a vertex shared by at most four edges.) Find such a vertex, and call it .