Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Trying to better understand the reductio ad absurdum

  1. Nov 3, 2012 #1
    I've just started studying college math.

    I read the proof by contradiction is based on the law of excluded middle. So i tried
    to make a general logic structure of this kind of demonstration to see how it could use
    this law. If i'm right, of course.

    Let X and Y be propositions.

    1. X -> Y
    2. ~Y
    3. X v ~X ¹
    By 1 and 3 we have:
    4. Y v ~X
    By 2 and 4 we have:
    ~X
    Q.E.D.

    ¹ - Law of excluded middle

    Is this how reductio ad absurdum is made?

    I mean, generally the following statement is used:
    "Suppose X is true. Then Y is true. But Y is false. So X is false."

    But isn't it the same thing i just did above?

    I know that, probably, i'm just talking non-sense. But even so, i think this non-sense
    can help you guys to help me out with my doubts.

    Anyway, thank you for the attention.

    My first language is portuguese and i'm not a good english writer. So if i made any english mistakes, i apologize.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2012 #2

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Hi, Charlie Sheep: ( I liked your work on two and a half mep ;) )

    This is my perspective: truth-tables for connectives like & , \/ , are defined so that

    they are truth-preserving. An argument is valid if, by definition, whenever the

    premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. Now, if you start with a true

    premise and arrive --using truth-preserving rules --to a false statement , i.e.,

    a contradiction-- then your initial premise must not have been true to start with.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook