A thought-provoking post by got me onto a different topic. I was taking a Boolean logic class back in college. We had a little logical solver, and we'd tell it what transformations to apply in what order to get from the givens to the result. It was nifty. One of the ones I had trouble with was to prove that given inconsistent premises, you can prove anything. In other words, if your given propositions contradict, there is *nothing* you can't prove. To put it in formal terms:

Given: P && ^P (that means: P and not P)
Prove: Q (any unrelated assumption)

And you can do that, knowing nothing about Q. Here's how:

Q || ^Q (Tautology -- every proposition must be either true or false)
^Q => P (Tautology -- if P is true then anything implies P, by definition of logical "implies")
^P => ^^Q (Contrapositive of the previous -- if ^Q implies P then ^P implies ^^Q)
^P => Q (not not Q is the same as Q)

You know that ^P is true from the given: (P && ^P).
So, from only (P && ^P) you have proven the unrelated proposition Q.

It's easier if you do a proof by negation, of course. But we were explicitly not allowed to do that on this problem, since it'd make it trivial.
• Post a new comment

#### Error

default userpic