User:Boris Tsirelson/Sandbox1: Difference between revisions
imported>Boris Tsirelson |
imported>Boris Tsirelson |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
If a contradiction exists in a given theory, this theory is called inconsistent. Otherwise, if no contradiction exist (rather than merely not found for now), the theory is called consistent. | If a contradiction exists in a given theory, this theory is called inconsistent. Otherwise, if no contradiction exist (rather than merely not found for now), the theory is called consistent. | ||
For a mathematician, an inconsistent theory is completely useless. Some philosophers disagree: | |||
<blockquote>Superstitious dread and veneration by mathematicians in face of a contradiction (Ludwig Wittgenstein)</blockquote> | <blockquote>Superstitious dread and veneration by mathematicians in face of a contradiction (Ludwig Wittgenstein)</blockquote> | ||
But a mathematician insists: an inconsistent theory is completely useless, since ''all'' statements (in the given language) are theorems! The reason is, proof by contradiction. | |||
No matter which statement ''X'' is in question, we always can prove ''X'' as follows: | |||
* Assume that ''X'' is false; | |||
* ... (put the contradiction here); | |||
* the assumption leads to a contradiction, thus ''X'' is true. | |||
------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | ||
Revision as of 12:58, 13 June 2010
Consistent or inconsistent
If a theory states that 2+2=5, it is a paradox but not yet a contradiction. By "paradox" people may mean
- a contradiction;
- an apparent contradiction;
- something counterintuitive;
- something surprising;
- something ironic;
etc. In contrast, a contradiction (in a mathematical theory) is, by definition, a pair of theorems (of the given theory) such that one is the negation of the other. Thus, two theorems
are still not a contradiction. Two theorems
are a contradiction.
If a contradiction exists in a given theory, this theory is called inconsistent. Otherwise, if no contradiction exist (rather than merely not found for now), the theory is called consistent.
For a mathematician, an inconsistent theory is completely useless. Some philosophers disagree:
Superstitious dread and veneration by mathematicians in face of a contradiction (Ludwig Wittgenstein)
But a mathematician insists: an inconsistent theory is completely useless, since all statements (in the given language) are theorems! The reason is, proof by contradiction. No matter which statement X is in question, we always can prove X as follows:
- Assume that X is false;
- ... (put the contradiction here);
- the assumption leads to a contradiction, thus X is true.