Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A system will be said to be inconsistent if it yields the assertion of the unmodified variable p [S in the Newman and Nagel examples]. In other words, the notion of "contradiction" can be dispensed when constructing a proof of consistency; what replaces it is the notion of "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" classes.
More broadly, proof by contradiction is any form of argument that establishes a statement by arriving at a contradiction, even when the initial assumption is not the negation of the statement to be proved. In this general sense, proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, [2] and reductio ad ...
For example, some unicellular organisms have genomes much larger than that of humans. ... Performative contradiction: Some statements contradict the conditions that ...
The post 26 of the Funniest Oxymoron Examples appeared first on Reader's Digest. A closer look at these contradictory phrases and quotes will make you laugh. 26 of the Funniest Oxymoron Examples
Reductio ad absurdum, painting by John Pettie exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical argument, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
When this recursion creates a metaphysical impossibility through contradiction, the regress or circularity is vicious. Again, the liar paradox is an instructive example: "This statement is false"—if the statement is true, then the statement is false, thereby making the statement true, thereby making the statement false, and so on. [15] [18]
In classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion [a] [b] is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. [1] [2] [3] That is, from a contradiction, any proposition (including its negation) can be inferred; this is known as deductive explosion. [4] [5]
[1] [2] Russell's paradox shows that every set theory that contains an unrestricted comprehension principle leads to contradictions. [3] According to the unrestricted comprehension principle, for any sufficiently well-defined property, there is the set of all and only the objects that have that property.