Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A proof by contrapositive is a direct proof of the contrapositive of a statement. [14] 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.
Indeed, the above proof that the law of excluded middle implies proof by contradiction can be repurposed to show that a decidable proposition is ¬¬-stable. A typical example of a decidable proposition is a statement that can be checked by direct computation, such as " n {\displaystyle n} is prime" or " a {\displaystyle a} divides b ...
In proof by exhaustion, the conclusion is established by dividing it into a finite number of cases and proving each one separately. The number of cases sometimes can become very large. For example, the first proof of the four color theorem was a proof by exhaustion with 1,936 cases. This proof was controversial because the majority of the cases ...
Modus tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P ." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument.
All horses are the same color is a falsidical paradox that arises from a flawed use of mathematical induction to prove the statement All horses are the same color. [1] There is no actual contradiction, as these arguments have a crucial flaw that makes them incorrect. This example was originally raised by George Pólya in a 1954 book in ...
Converse (logic) In logic and mathematics, the converse of a categorical or implicational statement is the result of reversing its two constituent statements. For the implication P → Q, the converse is Q → P. For the categorical proposition All S are P, the converse is All P are S. Either way, the truth of the converse is generally ...
An example of a rule that is not effective in this sense is the infinitary ω-rule. [1] Popular rules of inference in propositional logic include modus ponens, modus tollens, and contraposition. First-order predicate logic uses rules of inference to deal with logical quantifiers.
A system will be said to be inconsistent if it yields the assertion of the unmodified variable p [S in the Newman and Nagel examples]. In other words, the notion of "contradiction" can be dispensed when constructing a proof of consistency; what replaces it is the notion of "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" classes.