There is only existence absolute unexstence is an impossibilty

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alan McDougall

Hi

Wiikk Article

In mathematics, a constructive proof is a method of proof that demonstrates the existence of a mathematical object with certain properties by creating or providing a method for creating such an object. This is in contrast to a nonconstructive proof (also known as an existence proof or pure existence theorem) which proves the existence of a mathematical object with certain properties, but does not provide a means of constructing an example.

Many nonconstructive proofs assume the non-existence of the thing whose existence is required to be proven, and deduce a contradiction.

""The non-existence of the thing has therefore been shown to be logically impossible, and yet an actual example of the thing has not been found"".

Nearly every proof which invokes the axiom of choice is nonconstructive in nature because this axiom is fundamentally nonconstructive. The same can be said for proofs invoking König's lemma.

Constructivism is the philosophy that rejects all but constructive proofs in mathematics. Typically, supporters of this view deny that pure existence can be usefully characterized as "existence" at all: accordingly, a non-constructive proof is instead seen as "refuting the impossibility" of a mathematical object's existence, a strictly weaker statement.


Take Care

Alan

Stookie

For existence to exist, there must be non-existence. They are dependent on each other.

To find an answer in the paradox is missing the point of the exercise.

Starvingpercussionist

One could also say that if a paradox has no answer, then it's correct.  :-D
THE ANSWER PARADOX
The answer to all paradoxes shows this: "Reality contains logic therefore logic cannot contain reality."
The paradox here is "how can one know this is true?".

If the answer to one paradox is another then the question is the answer.

Alan McDougall

Stooky

QuoteFor existence to exist, there must be non-existence. They are dependent on each other.

To find an answer in the paradox is missing the point of the exercise.

By simply stating "there must BE" indicated that nonexistence is a something, to "be" or not to "be"

You cannot define existence as by doing that you must give it identity

How can something be depentent on nothing, the viod of outer space is not nothing, neither is a perfect, existence has always been.  But thinking deeply on this can twist ones
Take Care

Alan