[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 60 KB, 624x624, 3ad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15664347 No.15664347 [Reply] [Original]

> But professor, you have only proved the negation of the proposition to be false; you have yet to prove that the original proposition itself must be true. I'm afraid that as it stands your demonstration is quite incomplete.

>> No.15664746

>know your meme filename
/qa/ had more intelligent discussions than this shit bored

>> No.15664766

>>15664347
Sorry, but I find proof by absurdum quite convincing, maybe you could produce a counterargument that it is not?

>> No.15664827

>>15664766
> [Proof that ~P is false.] Q.E.D.
I'm sorry, but you're trying to prove that P is true. These are not the same thing. Try again.

>> No.15664890

>>15664347
Law of excluded middle, retard

>> No.15665483

>>15664890
>Law of excluded middle
Not a thing in intuitionistic logic.

>> No.15665496

>>15664827
Axiomatically true.

>> No.15665528

>>15664890
that's just an assumption. Who are you to impose your assumptions on everyone else?

>> No.15665812

>>15664890
Nice, I don't believe in it. Now prove your proposition to me in particular. You can, can't you anon?

>> No.15666049

>>15664347
>based intuitionist mathematician

>> No.15667294

based.

>> No.15667302
File: 37 KB, 683x660, chadflexing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15667302

>>15664347
Executed for being a soicialist.

>> No.15667317

> But professor, you have only proved the set of prime numbers to not be finite; you have yet to prove that the set of prime numbers must be infinite. I'm afraid that as it stands your demonstration is quite incomplete.

>> No.15667549

>>15664347
ok, let's suppose ~(~P), that the negation of the proposition is false.
further suppose ~P, that the original proposition is not true, as you suggest.
~P v P (because we have supposed ~P to be true, and therefore can introduce a disjunction with literally anything and have the resulting proposition be true given our premises)
but ~(~P)
therefore P.