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 ...
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.
A nonconstructive proof establishes that a mathematical object with a certain property exists—without explaining how such an object can be found. Often, this takes the form of a proof by contradiction in which the nonexistence of the object is proved to be impossible.
The use of this fact forms the basis of a proof technique called proof by contradiction, which mathematicians use extensively to establish the validity of a wide range of theorems. This applies only in a logic where the law of excluded middle A ∨ ¬ A {\displaystyle A\vee \neg A} is accepted as an axiom.
In which case, if P 1 (S) is the set of one-element subsets of S and f is a proposed bijection from P 1 (S) to P(S), one is able to use proof by contradiction to prove that |P 1 (S)| < |P(S)|. The proof follows by the fact that if f were indeed a map onto P(S), then we could find r in S, such that f({r}) coincides with the modified diagonal set ...
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 ...
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 method of exhaustion typically required a form of proof by contradiction, known as reductio ad absurdum. This amounts to finding an area of a region by first comparing it to the area of a second region, which can be "exhausted" so that its area becomes arbitrarily close to the true area.