Reductio Ad Absurdum: Understanding Contradictions

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemistry1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A contradiction in a mathematical statement indicates that the initial assumption must be incorrect, as mathematics requires consistency without contradictions. If a contradiction arises, it suggests that there may have been an error in the assumptions or reasoning leading to that point. The principle of explosion states that one contradiction can undermine the entire mathematical framework. Therefore, verifying each step in the reasoning process is crucial to ensure no mistakes were made. Understanding this principle reinforces the importance of logical consistency in mathematical proofs.
chemistry1
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have a little question concerning contradictions :

If I have a statement "A" that I want to prove, and only have the possibility for it to be True or False.

After some manipulations, I arrive at some contradiction. (Here's where my question begins.)

How can we know that a contradiction is enough to be sure at 100 % that a statement is not correct?

Is it because in Mathematics, for a thing to be True or False, it must always be ALWAYS "working" without arriving at some contradiction ? (Mathematical ideas must always work, and not sometimes yes, sometimes no.)

I just want to be sure of thinking of it in the right way, corrections would be greatly appreciated ! Thank you !
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
How can you know that a contradiction is enough? After you've checked to make sure you didn't make a mistake.

Mathematics cannot tolerate even one contradiction. With one single contradiction (X and both not X are true), *all* of mathematics falls apart. It's called the principle of explosion. Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion.

That said, there is no contradiction if you've just made a mistake somewhere. You've made a mistake, that's all. Suppose that you find a contradiction as a consequence of some initial assumption and verify that every step after making some initial assumption is solid. That doesn't mean you didn't make a mistake. You did. The mistake was making that initial assumption! The initial assumption has to be incorrect. By assuming something and then showing that this leads to a contradiction, you have but no choice but to reject that initial assumption.
 
AHhhhh! This is clear now ! It make sense lol

Thank you !
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top