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 contradiction, as opposed to metaphysical thinking, is not an objectively impossible thing, because these contradicting forces exist in objective reality, not cancelling each other out, but actually defining each other's existence. According to Marxist theory, such a contradiction can be found, for example, in the fact that:
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 definition of a formal proof is intended to capture the concept of proofs as written in the practice of mathematics. The soundness of this definition amounts to the belief that a published proof can, in principle, be converted into a formal proof. However, outside the field of automated proof assistants, this is rarely done in practice.
However, the general definitions remain valid in the more abstract setting of order theory where arbitrary partially ordered sets are considered. The concepts of infimum and supremum are close to minimum and maximum, but are more useful in analysis because they better characterize special sets which may have no minimum or maximum.
If the form of the contradiction is that we can derive a further counterexample D, that is smaller than C in the sense of the working hypothesis of minimality, then this technique is traditionally called proof by infinite descent. In which case, there may be multiple and more complex ways to structure the argument of the proof.
However, indirect methods such as proof by contradiction can also be used with contraposition, as, for example, in the proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2. By the definition of a rational number , the statement can be made that " If 2 {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}} is rational, then it can be expressed as an irreducible fraction ".
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept called mathematical fallacy.There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof, in that a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof while in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies there is some element of concealment or ...