SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + Line 23:
Line 27: + +
replies
:It's called the [[principle of explosion]]. It's a tenet of classical logic, so surely it must apply to the logical process employed in mathematical proofs. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 16:58, 3 December 2015 (EST)
:It's called the [[principle of explosion]]. It's a tenet of classical logic, so surely it must apply to the logical process employed in mathematical proofs. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 16:58, 3 December 2015 (EST)
::Right. It's been a mainstay of mathematics for a couple of thousand years. I'm glad you seem to recognize that. But it's nowhere near as insightful, obscure, or esoteric as you seem to indicate. It doesn't really need another name: "principle of explosion", though that name appears to already exist. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:23, 4 December 2015 (EST)
Proof by contradiction does work ... to prove the falsehood of a proposition. Why does proof by contradiction work? Because logic anarchy is rejected, which is what results from a falsehood, like [[atheism]]. As pointed out above, anything can be proven once a falsehood is accepted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:06, 3 December 2015 (EST)
Proof by contradiction does work ... to prove the falsehood of a proposition. Why does proof by contradiction work? Because logic anarchy is rejected, which is what results from a falsehood, like [[atheism]]. As pointed out above, anything can be proven once a falsehood is accepted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:06, 3 December 2015 (EST)
::Right. That's why falsehoods are not accepted. It's really not complicated. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:23, 4 December 2015 (EST)
== Move to Essay ==
== Move to Essay ==
:It sounds to me like a new conservative word for an up-to-now obscure idea. I would add it to the New Conservative Words (or terms) page not remove it as one the terms in the mainspace of the encyclopedia. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:41, 3 December 2015 (EST)
:It sounds to me like a new conservative word for an up-to-now obscure idea. I would add it to the New Conservative Words (or terms) page not remove it as one the terms in the mainspace of the encyclopedia. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:41, 3 December 2015 (EST)
::::It doesn't need yet another made-up name coined by Conservapedia. If you make up words or phrases for things that already have names and are clearly understood, and claim that they are new "conservative words", you are not adding any insights. And you are not helping people to take the "conservative words" page seriously if you just stuff in new made-up phrases for things that are already well known. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:23, 4 December 2015 (EST)
::*the idea seems to be still obscure :-)
::*the idea seems to be still obscure :-)