I Contradiction vs contraposition

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contradiction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between proof by contraposition and proof by contradiction in the context of the theorem p → q. Proof by contraposition involves assuming ¬q to derive ¬p, providing a clear logical path. In contrast, proof by contradiction starts with the assumption that p ∧ ¬q is true, leading to a contradiction without a defined outcome. The equivalence of these methods holds in classical first-order predicate logic, but may differ in intuitionist logic and others that reject certain axioms. Ultimately, proof by contradiction is critiqued for its lack of clarity and practical utility in problem-solving.
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
Say I have the theorem ##p \rightarrow q##. What is the difference between proving that ##\neg q \rightarrow \neg p## is true and showing that ##\neg (p \rightarrow q) = \neg p \wedge q## leads to a contradiction?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
##\neg (p \rightarrow q) = \neg p \wedge q##
That should be ##\neg (p \rightarrow q) = \neg q \wedge p##. If you are careful with statements like "for all" and "there exists", then they are all the same thing.
 
That last formula should be ##p\wedge \neg q##.

Subject to that, the two approaches are logically equivalent in classical first-order predicate logic, which is all that mathematicians that don't specialise in logic worry about.

In intuitionist logic and other logics where some of the basic axioms such as ##\neg\neg p\leftrightarrow p## are not accepted, the approaches may give different results.
 
You are asking about the difference between "Proof by contraposition" and "Proof by contradiction", and here is an example.To prove p \rightarrow q:

- In proof by contraposition you start by assuming that \neg q is true and derive the statement \neg p. Here, the path is clear, i.e. you start at \neg q and arrive at \neg p.

- In proof by contradiction your start by assuming that the opposite of p \rightarrow q is true. So you assume that p \wedge \neg q is true and derive some contradiction. Here the path is not clear, nobody is going to tell you what the contradiction is and what it looks like.
 
The trouble with "proof by contradiction" is that if you make a mistake somewhere, you can easily end up in a contradiction without actually proving anything.

Another point against "proof by contradiction" is that it does not help you in solving anything, it just says that the assumption is proved (but not how).
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top