- #1

- 520

- 2

It can be proved by proof by contradiction. hence it is just a variant of it?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter tgt
- Start date

- #1

- 520

- 2

It can be proved by proof by contradiction. hence it is just a variant of it?

- #2

- 284

- 3

- #3

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,824

- 0

Proof by contradiction: Assume p and ¬q; prove ⊥.

Proof by contraposition: Assume ¬q; prove ¬p.

A proof by contraposition can be turned into a proof by contradiction by adding the step "p ∧ ¬p ⇒ ⊥". But proofs by contradiction don't need to prove ¬p as an intermediate step; they can prove contradiction in other ways. So proof by contradiction is stronger.

On the other hand, the more constrained proof by contraposition is considered a constructive technique, while proof by contradiction is always considered nonconstructive. So if you have a choice use contraposition.

- #4

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 969

However, "proof by contradiction" more general. You start with "if not Q" but only need to arrive at two statements that contradict one another. I have seen proofs in which the two contraditory statements have no apparent connection with the hypothesis, P.

Share: