|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |