enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

    More broadly, proof by contradiction is any form of argument that establishes a statement by arriving at a contradiction, even when the initial assumption is not the negation of the statement to be proved. In this general sense, proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, [2] and reductio ad ...

  3. Contraposition - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

    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 .

  4. Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

    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.

  5. Euclid's theorem - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_theorem

    5.2 Proof using Legendre's formula. 5.3 Proof by construction. ... In the 1950s, Hillel Furstenberg introduced a proof by contradiction using point-set topology. [12]

  6. Contradiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction

    EFQ is equivalent to ex contradiction quodlibet, axiomatized , over minimal logic. Peirce's rule (PR) is an axiom (()) that captures proof by contradiction without explicitly referring to absurdity. Minimal logic + PR + EFQ yields classical logic.

  7. Principle of explosion - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

    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]

  8. Vieta jumping - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieta_jumping

    Using Vieta's formulas, show that this implies the existence of a smaller solution, hence a contradiction. Example. Problem #6 at IMO 1988: Let a and b be positive integers such that ab + 1 divides a 2 + b 2. Prove that ⁠ a 2 + b 2 / ab + 1 ⁠ is a perfect square. [8] [9] Fix some value k that is a non-square positive integer.

  9. Proof that π is irrational - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational

    Written in 1873, this proof uses the characterization of as the smallest positive number whose half is a zero of the cosine function and it actually proves that is irrational. [3] [4] As in many proofs of irrationality, it is a proof by contradiction.