Difference between revisions of "Reductio Ad Absurdum"
From Conservapedia
(Controverys noted: excluded middle etc) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
#Since ''N+1'' is composite, there must be a prime missing from our set of primes. But this set contains all primes | #Since ''N+1'' is composite, there must be a prime missing from our set of primes. But this set contains all primes | ||
#Therefore, our initial assumption ("there are finitely many primes") is invalid | #Therefore, our initial assumption ("there are finitely many primes") is invalid | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is an academic controversy over whether proofs by contradiction (see also [[Excluded Middle]]) should be accepted qua proofs; either due to concerns regarding computability, or [[Intuitionist Mathmematics]]. These are not necessarily held to be distinct concerns. Most mathematicians disregard any such controversy and accept proofs by contradiction. | ||
[[Category:Mathematics]] | [[Category:Mathematics]] | ||
Revision as of 20:21, May 20, 2009
Reductio ad absurdum, also called proof by contradiction, is a method of mathematical proof. It involves assuming the opposite of what one is trying to prove, and showing that this would lead to a contradiction. It works by the law of the excluded middle. The proof typically follows this structure:
- Create an initial assumption
- Follow a series of axiomatically valid steps
- Reach a contradiction
- Therefore the initial assumption is incorrect
An example of this is Euclid's proof of the infinitude of the primes:
- Assume there are finitely many primes
- Take the product of all primes and call it N. Since N+1 is not in our finite set of primes, it must be composite
- By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, N+1 has a prime factorization. But N+1 is not divisible by any of the previous primes
- Since N+1 is composite, there must be a prime missing from our set of primes. But this set contains all primes
- Therefore, our initial assumption ("there are finitely many primes") is invalid
There is an academic controversy over whether proofs by contradiction (see also Excluded Middle) should be accepted qua proofs; either due to concerns regarding computability, or Intuitionist Mathmematics. These are not necessarily held to be distinct concerns. Most mathematicians disregard any such controversy and accept proofs by contradiction.