Difference between revisions of "Reductio Ad Absurdum"
From Conservapedia
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Reductio ad absurdum''', also called | + | '''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 | #Create an initial assumption | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
#Therefore the initial assumption is incorrect | #Therefore the initial assumption is incorrect | ||
| − | An example of this is [[Euclid]]'s proof of the infinitude of the [[Prime number|primes]]: | + | An example of this is [[Euclid]]'s proof of the [[infinitude]] of the [[Prime number|primes]]: |
#Assume there are finitely many primes | #Assume there are finitely many primes | ||
Revision as of 17:59, June 30, 2008
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
