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 ...
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, 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 ".
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.
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]
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 ...
In classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion [a] [b] is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. [1] [2] [3] That is, from a contradiction, any proposition (including its negation) can be inferred; this is known as deductive explosion. [4] [5]