Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBrianna Linger Modified over 10 years ago
2
Negation Rules Reductio Ad Adsurdum Indirect Proof Dash In and Dash Out
3
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.
4
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out An illustration: Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT.
5
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
6
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. DA -S>-DA S
7
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. Child’s Fantasy DA -S>-DA -SPA S
8
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. Child’s Fantasy DA -S>-DA -SPA -D>O D&-D&I S
9
Negation Rules Dash In and Dash Out Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. DA -S>-DA -SPA -D>O D&-D&I S Contradiction! So S is the only choice.
10
Negation Rules Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. 1 1. DA 2 2. -S>-DA 3 3. -SPA 2,34. -D2,3 >O 1,2,35. D&-D1,4 &I 1,26. S3-5 -O An Official Proof
11
Negation Rules Eat your SPINACH. Why? Because if you don’t you won’t get DESERT. 1 1. DA 2 2. -S>-DA 3 3. -SPA 2,34. -D2,3 >O 1,2,35. D&-D1,4 &I 1,26. S3-5 -O An Official Proof
12
Negation Rules -In and -Out a.k.a. Reductio Ad Adsurdum or Indirect Proof A PA : ?&-? -A -In -A PA : ?&-? A -Out To prove a statement, assume the opposite and derive a standard contradiction: a statement of the form ?&-?
13
Avoiding a Confusion -In and -Out a.k.a. Reductio Ad Adsurdum or Indirect Proof A PA : ?&-? -A -In -A PA : ?&-? A -Out Indirect Proof reasoning often confuses people.
14
Avoiding a Confusion G PA P > O P&-P &I -G -In 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
15
Avoiding a Confusion G PA P > O P&-P &I -G -In 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 Sleepy Juror: The defense said: ‘Suppose my client is guilty’. So even his own lawyer thinks he is guilty.
16
Avoiding a Confusion G PA P > O P&-P &I -G -In 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 How to present an Indirect Proof in Court.
17
Avoiding a Confusion G PA P > O P&-P &I -G -In 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 How to present an Indirect Proof in Court: Give the PA to your opponent.
18
Avoiding a Confusion -In and -Out a.k.a. Reductio Ad Adsurdum or Indirect Proof A PA : ?&-? -A -In -A PA : ?&-? A -Out To prove a statement, assume the opposite and derive a standard contradiction: ?&-?. For more click here
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.