After thinking about this for quite some time...what's with mathfags and always doing proofs by contradiction? Why not just make a heavily inductive argument so that nobody would read the proof and just assume that it is correct?
inb4 muh euclid
ok i laughed
>>7918262
ebin
>>7918262
You fucking GORILLA ASSFAG don't learn, do you? After the tons of threads of you were taken down there are already THREE braindead threads up again. If you enjoy being raped by a thoughtful GORILLA go to the fucking jungle disguised as filthy gorilla fag and die.
>>7918262
I still don't know what the fuck a world of warcraft is OP.
>>7918262
>proofs by contradiction
This shit has always bothered me.
>lets prove something doesn't exist by assuming it exists.
logic of retards
>>7918262
its easier a lot of the time .
sometimes you gotta hold a shitload of mathematical statements each one deduced from the last one in your head at the same time to wrap your head around a proof where's you can easily show that the thing you're trying to prove being not true contradicts established shit .
Because its real nigga hours
>>7919517
I am 12 the post
>>7919257
holy shit I laughed, I just made the chrome gorilla on paint.net in like 3 minutes, glowing eyes gorilla, i must collect this
>>7919834
>I am an undergrad
>>7920579
What are you stupid fuck even talking about? This GORILLA SHIT POSTING needs to come to an end. Everyone posting a thread with a FILTHY GORILLA image implicitly admits that he is a worthless gay shitstain.
>>7920860
The gorilla is here to stay
>>7920860
Expcootga booga us.
It's math you dingus
>>7920884
>/sci/ - homework & IQ
I laughed
>>7920895
Okay I laughed
>>7919517
((P->~Q) ^ Q) -> (P->(~Q^Q)) -> (Qv~Q->~P) -> ~P.
What's so invalid about this method?
>>7920928
Shit, maybe I should make it more clear for you.
p<=>{(~qvq)=>p}<=>{(~~p)v(q^~q)}<=>{~p=>(q^~q)}.
Now clearly,
q=>{(~p=>~q)=>p}.
>>7920928
it is tacky
>>7921016
Please define that rigorously
>>7921123
It's rigorously tacky.
>>7921124
FUCK. LOL
>>7918262
kek i see it, make this meme a reality
Actual proofs by contradiction are very rare, because most people consider it bad form when another proof can be found.
>>7918262
Give me an inductive proof on the fact that invertible of a finite field form a cyclic group. It rephrases as "construct the fucking generator". Please do.
proofs by contradictions are ok on numbers up to Q.
>>7919517
>rejecting the axiom of choice
>>7922404
/thread
>>7922404
this. contradiction should be the last resort after direct or contrapositive proofs as they are a lot easier. with contradiction you still need to relate the result of assuming that the premise is false with the conclusion and that intellectual gap can be hard to fill. compare this to direct proofs where you just need to relate the premise with the conclusion or with contrapositive proofs with relating the inverse of the conclusion with the inverse of the premise
>>7923391
correction: in the first sentence by "they" i am referring to direct or contrapositive proofs
>>7923391
If you read anu first order logic, it is pretty clear why they use it.
Aren't "proofs by contradiction" actually circular?
>>7919517
>>lets prove something doesn't exist by assuming it exists.
>logic of retards
Think of it as seeing what would also be true if P were true (i.e. what P implies). If P implies a contradiction then it can't be true therefore it's opposite must be true.
Or in symbols:
[eqn](P \implies Q \land \neg Q) \implies \neg P[/eqn]
>>7926523
That's really a proof by contrapositive (as most proofs by contradiction should be rewritten to be).
>>7918262
theorem: OP is dumb
proof:
let's assume OP wasn't dumb. Then he wouldn't make this thread.
But he did.
By contradiction, we have our theorem.
