Professional Documents
Culture Documents
uk
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, or RAA for short, is a rule that can be used to prove negated formulas. To use RAA to prove the negation of a particular formula, we adopt the following two-part strategy: First, assume the formula in question. Second, use that assumption to derive a contradiction.
Question: what is a contradiction? Answer: A contradiction is the conjunction of a formula with the negation of the same formula. Examples: P&~P ~P&~~P (R S) & ~ (R S) (P (Q v (R & S))) & ~ (P (Q v (R & S)))
Lets see how RAA works in practice. Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P Q, P ~ Q : ~ P We begin by writing in our premises: {1} {2} 1. 2. PQ P~Q Premise Premise
c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk Were looking to move from these premises to the conclusion ~ P. Since were using RAA to do that, our next step is to assume P: {3} 3. P A
Now we use that assumption to derive a contradiction. In this instance, its quite easy: {1,3} {2,3} {1,2,3} 4. 5. 6. Q ~Q Q&~Q 1,3 MP 2,3 MP 4,5 &I
Now we apply RAA: RAA: If a contradiction is shown to be derivable from a formula, you may write the negation of that formula on a new line of proof. Annotate the new line with the line number of the contradiction, the line number of the relevant formula, and RAA. The dependency-numbers of the new line consist of all those of the old lines except that of the formula from which the contradiction was derived. Using this rule, the last of line of our proof will look like this: {1,2} 7. ~P 3,6 RAA
In this case, were looking to derive the conclusion P. We cant get that conclusion directly by using RAA, since it isnt a negated formula. What we can do, though, is to use RAA to derive ~ ~ P, and then use DNE to remove the double negation: {3} {1,3} {2,3} {1,2,3} {1,2} 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ~P Q ~Q Q&~Q ~~P A 1,3 MP 2,3 MP 4,5 &I 3,6 RAA 2
In practice, this way of using RAA and DNE in combination is often very useful.
Ask yourself: 1) Is the main connective in the conclusion a conditional? If so, apply the strategy for CP, i.e. assume the antecedent and try to derive the consequent. If not, ask: 2) Is the main connective of any member of the set of premises a disjunction? If so, apply the strategy for vE, i.e. assume the first disjunct and try to derive the conclusion, assume the second disjunct and try to derive the conclusion. Finally, draw that same conclusion from the original disjunctive premise by vE. If not: 3) Try RAA. Remember: the trick is to assume the opposite of what you want and then try to derive a contradiction from that assumption together with any other formula or formulas already available in the proof. The double negation rules will allow you to finish things off to suit your purposes.
Reading
Tomassi, P. Logic. Chapter 3, VI VIII.
Exercises
Exercises 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 (Qs 1-10).
http://fundraise.unicef.org.uk/MyPage/Charlie-KP-Marathon 3