170 likes | 324 Vues
Negation Rules. Reductio Ad Adsurdum Indirect Proof Dash In and Dash Out. Negation Rules. Reductio Ad Adsurdum Indirect Proof Dash In and Dash Out The basic idea: To prove A, Assume -A and derive a contradiction. Since -A leads to a contradiction, -A must be wrong,
E N D
Negation Rules Reductio Ad Adsurdum Indirect Proof Dash In and Dash Out
Negation Rules Reductio Ad Adsurdum Indirect Proof Dash In and Dash Out The basic idea: To prove A, Assume -A and derive a contradiction. Since -A leads to a contradiction, -A must be wrong, and so A must be right.
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out An illustration: Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT.
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out An illustration: Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. -S>-D The parent hopes the child will conclude: S
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. D A -S>-D A S
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. D A -S>-D A -S PA S Child’s Fantasy
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. D A -S>-D A -S PA -D >O D&-D &I S Child’s Fantasy
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. D A -S>-D A -S PA -D >O D&-D &I S Contradiction! So S is the only choice.
Negation Rules Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. 1 1. D A 2 2. -S>-D A 3 3. -S PA 2,3 4. -D 2,3 >O 1,2,3 5. D&-D 1,4 &I 1,2 6. S 3-5 -O An Official Proof
Negation Rules Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. 1 1. D A 2 2. -S>-D A 3 3. -S PA 2,3 4. -D 2,3 >O 1,2,3 5. D&-D 1,4 &I 1,2 6. S 3-5 -O An Official Proof
Negation Rules A PA : ?&-? -A -In -A PA : ?&-? A -Out -In and -Out a.k.a. Reductio Ad Adsurdum or Indirect Proof To prove a statement, assume the opposite and derive a standard contradiction: a statement of the form ?&-?
Avoiding a Confusion A PA : ?&-? -A -In -A PA : ?&-? A -Out -In and -Out a.k.a. Reductio Ad Adsurdum or Indirect Proof Indirect Proof reasoning often confuses people.
Avoiding a Confusion G = My client is guilty P = My client was in Paris. G>P The crime was in Paris -P A witness saw him in Houston G PA P >O P&-P &I -G -In
Avoiding a Confusion G = My client is guilty P = My client was in Paris. G>P The crime was in Paris -P A witness saw him in Houston G PA P >O P&-P &I -G -In Sleepy Juror: The defense said: ‘Suppose my client is guilty’. So even his own lawyer thinks he is guilty.
Avoiding a Confusion G = My client is guilty P = My client was in Paris. G>P The crime was in Paris -P A witness saw him in Houston G PA P >O P&-P &I -G -In How to present an Indirect Proof in Court.
Avoiding a Confusion G = My client is guilty P = My client was in Paris. G>P The crime was in Paris -P A witness saw him in Houston G PA P >O P&-P &I -G -In How to present an Indirect Proof in Court: Give the PA to your opponent.
Avoiding a Confusion A PA : ?&-? -A -In -A PA : ?&-? A -Out -In and -Out a.k.a. Reductio Ad Adsurdum or Indirect Proof To prove a statement, assume the opposite and derive a standard contradiction: ?&-?. For more click here