Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
One of the widely used types of impossibility proof is proof by contradiction.In this type of proof, it is shown that if a proposition, such as a solution to a particular class of equations, is assumed to hold, then via deduction two mutually contradictory things can be shown to hold, such as a number being both even and odd or both negative and positive.
The above proof uses a contradiction similar to that of the Berry paradox: "1 The 2 smallest 3 positive 4 integer 5 that 6 cannot 7 be 8 defined 9 in 10 fewer 11 than 12 twenty 13 English 14 words". It is also possible to show the non-computability of K by reduction from the non-computability of the halting problem H , since K and H are Turing ...
Christopher Strachey outlined a proof by contradiction that the halting problem is not solvable. [29] [30] The proof proceeds as follows: Suppose that there exists a total computable function halts(f) that returns true if the subroutine f halts (when run with no inputs) and returns false otherwise. Now consider the following subroutine:
The title page of the shortened Principia Mathematica to 56 54.43: "From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1 + 1 = 2." – Volume I, 1st edition, p. 379 (p. 362 in 2nd edition; p. 360 in abridged version).
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 ...
Some of the proofs of Fermat's little theorem given below depend on two simplifications.. The first is that we may assume that a is in the range 0 ≤ a ≤ p − 1.This is a simple consequence of the laws of modular arithmetic; we are simply saying that we may first reduce a modulo p.
In this proof method, one assumes the opposite of what is to be proved, and shows if that were true, it would create a contradiction. The contradiction shows that the assumption (that the conclusion is wrong) must have been incorrect, requiring the conclusion to hold. The proof falls roughly in two parts: In the first part, Wiles proves a ...