Given that I have a conjecture and if that conjecture were to be proved true it would show that a certain set of equations could not exist.
If I could prove that said set of equations didn't exist by other means, could I then use that result yo somehow show that the conjecture is true?
Logical Converses
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
 jestingrabbit
 Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
 Posts: 5967
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sydney
Re: Logical Converses
No. You would have (A> B) AND (C>B). A=F, B=T and C=T satisfies the expression ie your conjecture could be false and the conclusion true. You need to demonstrate that the conjection is true iff the equations don't exist, or some other condition that implies the conjecture to prove the conjecture. That the conjecture implies something and that something is true is nice, and at least gives you reason for hope, but turning it into a proof would require something else.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.
Re: Logical Converses
Thanks, this is really useful. I think I just realized how I might be able to show that the conjecture relies on the equations existing. me thinks this shall not be simple though.

 Posts: 563
 Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:48 am UTC
Re: Logical Converses
I'm interested, what conjecture are you studying?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests