Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byBrianna Linger Modified over 2 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

OK

Math 409/409G History of Mathematics Book I of Euclid’s Elements Part V: Parallel Lines.

Math 409/409G History of Mathematics Book I of Euclid’s Elements Part V: Parallel Lines.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on aerodynamics of planes Ppt on rocks soil and minerals Ppt on supply chain management of nokia phone Ppt on cost accounting concepts Ppt on electricity billing system Ppt on 21st century skills for education Ppt on standardization and grading Seminar ppt on mobile computing free download Ppt on chapter 3 atoms and molecules images Ppt on road accidents in malaysia