Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 13/12/2010 06:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Proof by contradiction isn't reducto ad absurdum.
> 
> What is then?

Reducto ad absurdum is reducto ad absurdum.

> Presumably since I haven't proven the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, 
> this doesn't count as a valid proof.

That's an implicit lemma of most proofs.

For example, your "on the other hand" paragraph might need proof, might not, 
depending who you're trying to prove it to.

> It does, however, make a lot more sense to somebody who is willing to 
> take it on faith. (I gather that actually *proving* the matter in this 
> direction is drastically more complex...)

No, it's one of the first known mathematical proofs. It's not drastically 
more complex.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message