Ygthkb

Why is Shelob considered evil?

Is the percentage symbol a constant?

How to regain lost focus?

How can I differentiate duration vs starting time

What can I do to encourage my players to use their consumables?

Renting a 2CV in France

Why does a single AND gate need 60 transistors?

Performance and power usage for Raspberry Pi in the Stratosphere

Can you say "leftside right"?

Coworker is trying to get me to sign his petition to run for office. How to decline politely?

How can I prevent an oracle who can see into the past from knowing everything that has happened?

How to know if I am a 'Real Developer'

Third wheel character

How can I handle players killing my NPC outside of combat?

Boss asked me to sign a resignation paper without a date on it along with my new contract

Is "accuse people to be racist" grammatical?

Is there a celebrity culture in academia and should we discourage it?

Expression for "unconsciously using words (or accents) used by a person you often talk with or listen to"?

Is there any danger of my neighbor having my wife's signature?

Is layered encryption more secure than long passwords?

If I tried and failed to start my own business, how do I apply for a job without job experience?

Can you prevent a man in the middle from reading the message?

Is it really OK to use "because of"?

Disk space full during insert, what happens?

Proof by contradiction - Getting my head around it

Linearly Independent Set ProofLinearly Independent Set Proof with Cross ProductA method of proof by contradiction for independence?Formal Proof ProblemRules for getting rid of assumptions for certain variables which do not appear in the conclusion of a proofUniqueness ProofFormal proof in Fitch - How to prove contradiction in a biconditional?formal Proof of an inequalityIs an axiom a proof?Non contradiction principle

2

$begingroup$

Hey there Math community!

I have a general question on contradiction and it's getting difficult to get my head around it.

Notes:

1. I have some background in math and I have read several proofs by contradiction already




2. For the sake of the argument, let us assume the fundamental theorem of arithmetic

As per the general strategy for the proof, we assume the opposite of something that we wish to prove to begin with.

i.e A number that does NOT have a unique decomposition of primes.

We then proceed by a logical sequence of steps to show that this leads to a contradiction.

**Thus our original assumption was untenable and hence we have proved that all numbers have a unique decomposition of primes.

I have a problem understanding the star marked step.

It's like saying, if we want to prove the man is happy, let us assume the man is unhappy.

A logical sequence of steps leads to a contradiction.

Hence, our initial assumption is flawed, so the man is 'happy'?!?

What ensures that 'NOT unhappy' means 'happy' in the realm of math?

Thank you for your time :)

formal-proofs

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

J. W. Tanner

2,3761117

asked 2 hours ago

hargun3045hargun3045

7218

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

Hey there Math community!

I have a general question on contradiction and it's getting difficult to get my head around it.

Notes:

1. I have some background in math and I have read several proofs by contradiction already




2. For the sake of the argument, let us assume the fundamental theorem of arithmetic

As per the general strategy for the proof, we assume the opposite of something that we wish to prove to begin with.

i.e A number that does NOT have a unique decomposition of primes.

We then proceed by a logical sequence of steps to show that this leads to a contradiction.

**Thus our original assumption was untenable and hence we have proved that all numbers have a unique decomposition of primes.

I have a problem understanding the star marked step.

It's like saying, if we want to prove the man is happy, let us assume the man is unhappy.

A logical sequence of steps leads to a contradiction.

Hence, our initial assumption is flawed, so the man is 'happy'?!?

What ensures that 'NOT unhappy' means 'happy' in the realm of math?

Thank you for your time :)

formal-proofs

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

J. W. Tanner

2,3761117

asked 2 hours ago

hargun3045hargun3045

7218

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Hey there Math community!

I have a general question on contradiction and it's getting difficult to get my head around it.

Notes:

1. I have some background in math and I have read several proofs by contradiction already




2. For the sake of the argument, let us assume the fundamental theorem of arithmetic

As per the general strategy for the proof, we assume the opposite of something that we wish to prove to begin with.

i.e A number that does NOT have a unique decomposition of primes.

We then proceed by a logical sequence of steps to show that this leads to a contradiction.

**Thus our original assumption was untenable and hence we have proved that all numbers have a unique decomposition of primes.

I have a problem understanding the star marked step.

It's like saying, if we want to prove the man is happy, let us assume the man is unhappy.

A logical sequence of steps leads to a contradiction.

Hence, our initial assumption is flawed, so the man is 'happy'?!?

What ensures that 'NOT unhappy' means 'happy' in the realm of math?

Thank you for your time :)

formal-proofs

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

J. W. Tanner

2,3761117

asked 2 hours ago

hargun3045hargun3045

7218

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

J. W. Tanner

2,3761117

asked 2 hours ago

hargun3045hargun3045

7218

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

J. W. Tanner

2,3761117

asked 2 hours ago

hargun3045hargun3045

7218

edited 1 hour ago

J. W. Tanner

2,3761117

edited 1 hour ago

J. W. Tanner

2,3761117

asked 2 hours ago

hargun3045hargun3045

7218

asked 2 hours ago

hargun3045hargun3045

7218

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

3

$begingroup$

This is called the law of excluded middle, and it is a kind of "meta-axiom" that most mathematicians accept.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

AGFAGF

654

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3124522%2fproof-by-contradiction-getting-my-head-around-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

$begingroup$

This is called the law of excluded middle, and it is a kind of "meta-axiom" that most mathematicians accept.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

AGFAGF

654

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

This is called the law of excluded middle, and it is a kind of "meta-axiom" that most mathematicians accept.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

AGFAGF

654

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

This is called the law of excluded middle, and it is a kind of "meta-axiom" that most mathematicians accept.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

AGFAGF

654

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

AGFAGF

654

answered 2 hours ago

AGFAGF

654

answered 2 hours ago

AGFAGF

654