What is proof by Reductio Ad Absurdum?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    1. P > Q..............premise
    2. P.....................premise......./Q
    3. ~Q..................assume for reductio ad absurdum
    4. Q.....................1, 2 Modus Ponens
    5. Q & ~Q............3, 4 Conjunction
    6. Q......................2 to 5 reductio ad absurdum

    I know the rules but I don't understand why it works.

    What I think is happening:

    1. ~Q > (Q & ~Q)...from 3-5 in the above argument
    But we know: 2. ~(Q & ~Q)...from law of noncontradiction
    3. ~~Q......1, 2 Modus Tollens
    4. Q............3 Double Negation

    Am I right?
    TheMadFool Options
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.7k
    ↪TheMadFool

    That's basically it.

    One conceptual step that might help:
    If you have premises ¶ and want to derive the conclusion Q, then you want to show that the conditional ¶→Q is true. Assuming that conditional is false should lead to a contradiction. As it happens, ~(¶→Q) is ¶ & ~Q. So if you show that the conclusion Q being false leads to a contraction, then you've shown that the premises do imply the conclusion.
    Srap Tasmaner Options
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    ↪Srap Tasmaner
    (Y)
    TheMadFool Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories