False(apex real answer)
True. (apex FAKE ANSWER)
True. (apex)
False. In an indirect proof, you assume the opposite of what you intend to prove is true. This method involves showing that this assumption leads to a contradiction, thereby confirming that the original statement must be true.
True. In an indirect proof, also known as a proof by contradiction, you start by assuming that the opposite (or converse) of what you want to prove is true. Then, you logically derive a contradiction from that assumption, which shows that the original statement must be true.
True. In an indirect proof, also known as proof by contradiction, you assume that the opposite of what you want to prove is true. Then, you show that this assumption leads to a contradiction, thereby demonstrating that the original statement must be true. This method effectively highlights the validity of the claim by eliminating the possibility of its inverse being true.
It is true.
True. (apex)
Yes, that's how it is done. Assuming the contrary should eventually lead you to some contradiction.
False. In an indirect proof, you assume the opposite of what you intend to prove is true. This method involves showing that this assumption leads to a contradiction, thereby confirming that the original statement must be true.
True. In an indirect proof, also known as a proof by contradiction, you start by assuming that the opposite (or converse) of what you want to prove is true. Then, you logically derive a contradiction from that assumption, which shows that the original statement must be true.
True. In an indirect proof, also known as proof by contradiction, you assume that the opposite of what you want to prove is true. Then, you show that this assumption leads to a contradiction, thereby demonstrating that the original statement must be true. This method effectively highlights the validity of the claim by eliminating the possibility of its inverse being true.
false
false
False (Apex)
It is true.
It is true.
Well that’s the Answer
Yes. It also called proof by "reduction ad absurdum".