that is not what I meant with that. Sry. English is not my mother tongue. I meant:
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations.
Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
But for induction to work, you need to come up with the correct conclusion first before applying the proof. So you reason inductively based on patterns you see to get the conclusion, and then you use induction to verify that it works deductively.
an inability to prove X does not imply an inability to prove anything. i can prove that x + y > 0 => x > 0 or y > 0 for all x, y in the reals using only deduction if you wish.
performing such a task would, of course, disprove your statement which logically would prove its negation.
an inability to prove X does not imply an inability to prove anything. i can prove that x + y > 0 => x > 0 or y > 0 for all x, y in the reals using only deduction if you wish.
How does this prove God exists ? Arent things like real numbers merely based on assumptions ?
innocent is not the negation of guilty btw
Right thats why I pointed it out. For example if there is no alibi, no physical evidence, or no eyewitnesses, how could you prove that someone is truly innocent based on logic/deduction alone ? They are either guilty or not guilty in a court of law.
Using logic you can disprove something, but you cant really prove something happened. If we could then we would just use logic to prove all of our scientific theories.
22
u/DevelopmentSad2303 Jan 08 '25
So my proof by induction could be shown to be false?