Proof by Contradiction

Get Proof by Contradiction essential facts below. View Videos or join the Proof by Contradiction discussion. Add Proof by Contradiction to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
## Principle

### Law of the excluded middle

## Relationship with other proof techniques

## Examples

### Irrationality of the square root of 2

### The length of the hypotenuse

### No least positive rational number

### Other

## Notation

## Principle of explosion

## Reception

## See also

## References

## Further reading and external links

This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Proof by Contradiction

In logic and mathematics, **proof by contradiction** is a form of proof that establishes the truth or the validity of a proposition, by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as **indirect proof**, **proof by assuming the opposite**, and * reductio ad impossibile*.

Proof by contradiction is based on the law of noncontradiction as first formalized as a metaphysical principle by Aristotle. Noncontradiction is also a theorem in propositional logic. This states that an assertion or mathematical statement cannot be both true and false. That is, a proposition *Q* and its negation *Q* ("not-*Q*") cannot both be true. In a proof by contradiction, it is shown that the denial of the statement being proved results in such a contradiction. It has the form of a *reductio ad absurdum* argument, and usually proceeds as follows:

- The proposition to be proved,
*P*, is assumed to be false. That is,*P*is true. - It is then shown that
*P*implies two mutually contradictory assertions,*Q*and*Q*. - Since
*Q*and*Q*cannot both be true, the assumption that*P*is false must be wrong, so*P*must be true.

The 3rd step is based on the following possible truth value cases of a valid argument p -> q.

- p(T) -> q(T), where x in p(x) is the truth value of a statement p; T for True and F for False.
- p(F) -> q(T).
- p(F) -> q(F).

It tells that if a false statement is reached via a valid logic from an assumed statement, then the assumed statement is a false statement. This fact is used in proof by contradiction.

Proof by contradiction is formulated as , where is a logical contradiction or a *false* statement (a statement which truth value is *false*). If is reached from *P* via a valid logic, then is proved as true so p is prove as true.

An alternate form of proof by contradiction derives a contradiction with the statement to be proved by showing that *P* implies *P*. This is a contradiction so the assumption *P* must be false, equivalently *P* as true. This is formulated as .

An existence proof by contradiction assumes that some object doesn't exist, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object must exist. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of nonconstructive proof as universally valid.

Proof by contradiction also depends on the law of the excluded middle, also first formulated by Aristotle. This states that either an assertion or its negation must be true

- (For all propositions
*P*, either*P*or not-*P*is true)

That is, there is no other truth value besides "true" and "false" that a proposition can take. Combined with the principle of noncontradiction, this means that exactly one of and is true. In proof by contradiction, this permits the conclusion that since the possibility of has been excluded, must be true.

The law of the excluded middle is accepted in virtually all formal logics; however, some intuitionist mathematicians do not accept it, and thus reject proof by contradiction as a viable proof technique.^{[2]}

This section does not cite any sources. (January 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |

Proof by contradiction is closely related to proof by contrapositive, and the two are sometimes confused, though they are distinct methods. The main distinction is that a proof by contrapositive applies only to statements that can be written in the form (i.e., implications), whereas the technique of proof by contradiction applies to statements of any form:

**Proof by contradiction (general)**: assume and derive a contradiction.

- This corresponds, in the framework of propositional logic, to the equivalence , where is a logical contradiction or a
*false*statement (a statement which truth value is*false*).

- This corresponds, in the framework of propositional logic, to the equivalence , where is a logical contradiction or a

In the case where the statement to be proven *is* an implication , then the differences between direct proof, proof by contrapositive, and proof by contradiction can be outlined as follows:

**Direct proof**: assume and show .**Proof by contrapositive**: assume and show .

- This corresponds to the equivalence .

**Proof by contradiction**: assume and and derive a contradiction.

- This corresponds to the equivalences .

A classic proof by contradiction from mathematics is the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational.^{[3]} If it were rational, it would be expressible as a fraction *a*/*b* in lowest terms, where *a* and *b* are integers, at least one of which is odd. But if *a*/*b* = , then *a*^{2} = 2*b*^{2}. Therefore, *a*^{2} must be even, and because the square of an odd number is odd, that in turn implies that *a* is itself even -- which means that *b* must be odd because a/b is in lowest terms.

On the other hand, if *a* is even, then *a*^{2} is a multiple of 4. If *a*^{2} is a multiple of 4 and *a*^{2} = 2*b*^{2}, then 2*b*^{2} is a multiple of 4, and therefore *b*^{2} must be even, which means that so is *b* too.

So *b* is both odd and even, a contradiction. Therefore, the initial assumption--that can be expressed as a fraction--must be false.^{[4]}

The method of proof by contradiction has also been used to show that for any non-degenerate right triangle, the length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two remaining sides.^{[5]} By letting *c* be the length of the hypotenuse and *a* and *b* be the lengths of the legs, one can also express the claim more succinctly as *a* + *b* > *c*. In which case, a proof by contradiction can then be made by appealing to the Pythagorean theorem.

First, the claim is negated to assume that *a* + *b* c. In which case, squaring both sides would yield that (*a* + *b*)^{2} c^{2}, or equivalently, *a*^{2} + 2*ab* + *b*^{2} c^{2}. A triangle is non-degenerate if each of its edges has positive length, so it may be assumed that both *a* and *b* are greater than 0. Therefore, *a*^{2} + *b*^{2} < *a*^{2} + 2*ab* + *b*^{2} c^{2}, and the transitive relation may be reduced further to *a*^{2} + *b*^{2} < *c*^{2}.

On the other hand, it is also known from the Pythagorean theorem that *a*^{2} + *b*^{2} = *c*^{2}. This would result in a contradiction since strict inequality and equality are mutually exclusive. The contradiction means that it is impossible for both to be true and it is known that the Pythagorean theorem holds. It follows from there that the assumption *a* + *b* c must be false and hence *a* + *b* > *c*, proving the claim.

Consider the proposition, *P*: "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0". In a proof by contradiction, we start by assuming the opposite, ¬*P*: that there *is* a smallest rational number, say, *r*.

Now, *r*/2 is a rational number greater than 0 and smaller than *r*. But that contradicts the assumption that *r* was the *smallest* rational number (if "*r* is the smallest rational number" were *Q, then* one can infer from "*r*/2 is a rational number smaller than *r*" that ¬*Q*.) This contradictions shows that the original proposition, *P*, must be true. That is, that "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0".

For other examples, see proof that the square root of 2 is not rational (where indirect proofs different from the one above can be found) and Cantor's diagonal argument.

Proofs by contradiction sometimes end with the word "Contradiction!". Isaac Barrow and Baermann used the notation Q.E.A., for "*quod est absurdum*" ("which is absurd"), along the lines of Q.E.D., but this notation is rarely used today.^{[6]}^{[7]} A graphical symbol sometimes used for contradictions is a downwards zigzag arrow "lightning" symbol (U+21AF), for example in Davey and Priestley.^{[8]} Others sometimes used include a pair of opposing arrows (as or ), struck-out arrows (), a stylized form of hash (such as U+2A33), or the "reference mark" (U+203B).^{[9]}^{[10]} The "up tack" symbol (U+22A5) used by philosophers and logicians (see contradiction) also appears, but is often avoided due to its usage for orthogonality.

A curious logical consequence of the principle of non-contradiction is that a contradiction implies any statement; if a contradiction is accepted as true, any proposition (including its negation) can be proved from it.^{[11]} This is known as the principle of explosion (Latin: *ex falso quodlibet*, "from a falsehood, anything [follows]", or * ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet*, "from a contradiction, anything follows"), or the principle of pseudo-scotus.

- (for all Q, P and not-P implies Q)

Thus a contradiction in a formal axiomatic system is disastrous; since any theorem can be proven true, it destroys the conventional meaning of truth and falsity.

The discovery of contradictions at the foundations of mathematics at the beginning of the 20th century, such as Russell's paradox, threatened the entire structure of mathematics due to the principle of explosion. This motivated a great deal of work during the 20th century to create consistent axiomatic systems to provide a logical underpinning for mathematics. This has also led a few philosophers such as Newton da Costa, Walter Carnielli and Graham Priest to reject the principle of non-contradiction, giving rise to theories such as paraconsistent logic and dialethism, which accepts that there exist statements that are both true and false.^{[12]}

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (May 2020) |

G. H. Hardy described proof by contradiction as "one of a mathematician's finest weapons", saying "It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game."^{[13]}

- Law of excluded middle
- Law of noncontradiction
- Proof by exhaustion
- Proof by infinite descent, a form of proof by contradiction

**^**"Reductio ad absurdum | logic".*Encyclopedia Britannica*. Retrieved .**^**"The Definitive Glossary of Higher Mathematical Jargon -- Proof by Contradiction".*Math Vault*. 2019-08-01. Retrieved .**^**Alfeld, Peter (16 August 1996). "Why is the square root of 2 irrational?".*Understanding Mathematics, a study guide*. Department of Mathematics, University of Utah. Retrieved 2013.**^**"Proof by contradiction".*Art of Problem Solving*. Retrieved .**^**Stone, Peter. "Logic, Sets, and Functions: Honors" (PDF).*Course materials*. pp 14-23: Department of Computer Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 2013.CS1 maint: location (link)**^**"Math Forum Discussions".**^**"The Definitive Glossary of Higher Mathematical Jargon -- Q.E.A."*Math Vault*. 2019-08-01. Retrieved .**^**B. Davey and H.A. Priestley, Introduction to lattices and order, Cambridge University Press, 2002.**^**The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List, pg. 20. http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/info/symbols/comprehensive/symbols-a4.pdf**^**Gary Hardegree,*Introduction to Modal Logic*, Chapter 2, pg. II-2. https://web.archive.org/web/20110607061046/http://people.umass.edu/gmhwww/511/pdf/c02.pdf**^**Ferguson, Thomas Macaulay; Priest, Graham (2016).*A Dictionary of Logic*. Oxford University Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-0192511553.**^**Carnielli, Walter; Marcos, João (2001). "A Taxonomy of C-systems". arXiv:math/0108036.**^**G. H. Hardy,*A Mathematician's Apology; Cambridge University Press, 1992. ISBN 9780521427067.*PDF p.19.

- Franklin, James (2011).
*Proof in Mathematics: An Introduction*. chapter 6: Kew. ISBN 978-0-646-54509-7. Archived from the original on 2002-10-14.CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link) - Proof by Contradiction from Larry W. Cusick's How To Write Proofs
- Reductio ad Absurdum Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; ISSN 2161-0002

This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Popular Products

Music Scenes

Popular Artists