my largest contribution to Logic-- getting rid of Reductio Ad Absurdum by showing what it truly is #1434 Correcting Math
I am going to have to go slow on this, for I have a huge mouthful to say about it. It is a problem that has plagued me since 1993, this ambiguity about the Direct Method/ Constructive Proof versus the Indirect Method/Reductio ad Absurdum.
Recent events, such as the proving of FLT has raised the issue in my mind again. And for once I jumped the hurdle, that there is no Reductio Ad Absurdum method for a math proof, but is a disguise of a incomplete Constructive method.
I am going to use truth tables and my old textbook by Copi and others.
I am going to use the analogy of the Mars mission of finding life on Mars.
I am going to cite the Wiles fake proof of FLT, by its use of Suppose something "does not exist" or "does exist" and how no valid conclusions can come from such obnoxious method.
And I am going to cite the most famous reductio ad absurdum proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes and that it was just a Constructive proof disguised as reductio ad absurdum. Plus the modern day best proof of infinitude of primes that there are 10^603 primes from 0 to 10^1206 where 1*10^603 is the infinity borderline.
I probably could never do this work, any earlier than January 2014. What I am doing is showing that the method Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a method of proof at all, and that it is a masked and inferior form of a Constructive Proof.
I will go slowly, because when I have such a large amount of vim and vigor of a topic to cover, I better parse it in little parsels.
Recently I re-opened the old newsgroup of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of mockers and hatemongers.