This was our fourth week in CST 329 - Reasoning with Logic
Reductio ad Absurdum: Often called an "indirect proof" or "indirect derivation". Similar to a subproof, but our assumption is the opposite of the conclusion we want to reach, and we create a contradiction within the indirect proof itself.
 |
| Basic structure of an Indirect Proof |
 |
An Indirect Proof We assume that ¬¬P, we arrive at both R and ¬R, we conclude that the assumption must be false, so ¬P. |
 |
| A second example of an Indirect Proof |
Contradictory Sentence: A sentence that must be false.
↔: The symbol for a biconditional, (Φ↔Ψ). A biconditional is true if both or neither of its contituents is true, and false otherwise.
 |
| Truth Table for a Biconditional |
 |
| Equivalence |
 |
| Bicondition |
 |
| Many proofs for biconditionals look like the image above, with multiple subproofs |
 |
| Proof using biconditionals and mutliple subproofs |
 |
| Proof for a biconditional using an indirect proof |
Contingent Sentence: A sentence that might be true, or might be false.
 |
| Theorems |
 |
| Once a theorem is proven, we can use it in any proof. |
Comments
Post a Comment