Given a proposition X, a regular proof known facts and logical arguments to show that X must be true. For an indirect proof, you assume that the negation of X is true. You then use known facts and logical arguments to show that this leads to a contradiction. The conclusion then is that the assumption about ~X being true is false and that is equivalent to showing that X is true.
contradiction
It is a type of indirect proof: more specifically, a proof by contradiction.
With an indirect proof, you temporarily assume that the opposite of what you're trying to prove is true. For example, let's say I'm trying to prove that the sky is blue. With an indirect proof, I would first say: "Assume temporarily that sky is not blue..." and go from there. Eventually, I will reach a contradiction and with this contradiction I can assume that this route of thinking is false, therefore my proof must be true.
The term that best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove is 'indirect proof'.
True. (apex)
An indirect proof is a proof by contradiction.
contradiction
An indirect proof is another name for a proof by contradiction. This is where the original premise is assumed to be false and then attempted to be proven. Because this proof turns out to be false, the original premise is then true.
Proof in which one assumes the opposite of what you have to prove is indirect proof. In indirect proof a person can draw a conclusion from assuming the opposite is true and then find a conclusion.
o.o
The first half of your sentence is missing.
It is a type of indirect proof: more specifically, a proof by contradiction.
TrueIt is true that the body of an indirect proof you must show that the assumption leads to a contradiction. In math a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement.
TrueIt is true that the body of an indirect proof you must show that the assumption leads to a contradiction. In math a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement.
Proof by contradiction is also known by its Latin equivalent, reductio ad absurdum.
With an indirect proof, you temporarily assume that the opposite of what you're trying to prove is true. For example, let's say I'm trying to prove that the sky is blue. With an indirect proof, I would first say: "Assume temporarily that sky is not blue..." and go from there. Eventually, I will reach a contradiction and with this contradiction I can assume that this route of thinking is false, therefore my proof must be true.
true