Am I correct? What is the assumption needed to begin an indirect proof of the following statement? “Cows do not have horns.” Bulls do not have horns. Bulls have horns. Cows do not have horns. Cows have horns. *this is considered math*
i think the answer is "Bulls have horns."
Cows have horns
That's close. You're trying to prove "Cows do not have horns". So you assume it is not true. How would you phrase it if it were not true?
@myko, please read the Code of Conduct. It is against the rules to post full answers. Thank you.
yw
lol, maths sure changed a lot
so @Limitless it is asking for the opposite?
Yes. The opposite of the statement "Cows do not have horns".
By the way, this is considered math because it illustrates the principle of proof by contradiction.
@samitheman99 its actually considered geometry no joke @Limitless how so? that doesnt make sense if you think about the words "indirect proof" i would think it would be proving that statement by using another example
It's called "indirect proof" because you are proving it without explicitly proving it. You are proving it in a roundabout way. Hence, "indirect proof".
oh okay now i understand. :) thank you.
@LivForMusic & isn't geometry part of maths Steps for Using Indirect Proofs Step 1 Assume the opposite of the conclusion (or prove statement). Step 2 Reason logically to show the assumption leads to a contradiction of a known fact. Be sure to explain your whys! Step 3 Conclude the assumption is false, which in turn proves the conclusion is true. so "Cows have horns
np :)
Wait, @Calcmathlete, you assume the oppposite of the statement.
You don't assume the statement itself.
Oh yeah. Sorry. I had a brief brain fart.
It's cool. @LivForMusic, what do you think the answer is?
@Limitless and @Calcmathlete so you minf helping with my next question that is similar. and i think the asnwer to this one is "cows have horns*
Correct. Good job.
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!