Did everyone else’s first year maths lecturer prove that if 1=0, then they were Brigitte Bardot? (We all applauded at the end of the proof.) Now that’s how to hammer home the point of a logical explosion from a false statement.
Did everyone else’s first year maths lecturer prove that if 1=0, then they were Brigitte Bardot? (We all applauded at the end of the proof.) Now that’s how to hammer home the point of a logical explosion from a false statement.
A false statement isn’t sufficient to obtain logical explosion, but it is necessary. Most likely, you are referring to a “proof” that introduces a premise that contradicts an earlier stated premise without any of the students noticing (which is a very cool trick indeed). Contradictory premises are necessary and sufficient to obtain logical explosion.
Most likely, you are referring to a “proof” that introduces a premise that contradicts an earlier stated premise without any of the students noticing (which is a very cool trick indeed).
If it’s like the “I am god” trick, then the contradiction is using both 1=1 and 1=2 at the same time.
Did everyone else’s first year maths lecturer prove that if 1=0, then they were Brigitte Bardot? (We all applauded at the end of the proof.) Now that’s how to hammer home the point of a logical explosion from a false statement.
A false statement isn’t sufficient to obtain logical explosion, but it is necessary. Most likely, you are referring to a “proof” that introduces a premise that contradicts an earlier stated premise without any of the students noticing (which is a very cool trick indeed). Contradictory premises are necessary and sufficient to obtain logical explosion.
If it’s like the “I am god” trick, then the contradiction is using both 1=1 and 1=2 at the same time.