Definition:Contradiction
Definition
A contradiction is a statement which is always false, independently of any relevant circumstances that could theoretically influence its truth value.
This has the form:
- $p \land \neg p$
or, equivalently:
- $\neg p \land p$
that is:
- $p$ is true and, at the same time, $p$ is not true.
An example of a "relevant circumstance" here is the truth value of $p$.
The archetypal contradiction can be symbolised by $\bot$, and referred to as bottom.
Inconsistent
A set $\FF$ of logical formulas is inconsistent for $\mathscr P$ if and only if:
- For every logical formula $\phi$, $\FF \vdash_{\mathscr P} \phi$.
That is, every logical formula $\phi$ is a provable consequence of $\FF$.
Unsatisfiable
Let $\LL$ be a logical language.
Let $\mathscr M$ be a formal semantics for $\LL$.
Unsatisfiable Formula
A logical formula $\phi$ of $\LL$ is unsatisfiable for $\mathscr M$ if and only if:
- $\phi$ is valid in none of the structures of $\mathscr M$
That is, for all structures $\MM$ of $\mathscr M$:
- $\MM \not\models_{\mathscr M} \phi$
Unsatisfiable Set of Formulas
A collection $\FF$ of logical formulas of $\LL$ is unsatisfiable for $\mathscr M$ if and only if:
- There is no $\mathscr M$-model $\MM$ for $\FF$
That is, for all structures $\MM$ of $\mathscr M$:
- $\MM \not \models_{\mathscr M} \FF$
Unsatisfiable for Boolean Interpretations
Let $\mathbf A$ be a WFF of propositional logic.
$\mathbf A$ is called unsatisfiable (for boolean interpretations) if and only if:
- $\map v {\mathbf A} = \F$
for every boolean interpretation $v$ for $\mathbf A$.
In terms of validity, this can be rendered:
- $v \not \models_{\mathrm {BI} } \mathbf A$
that is, $\mathbf A$ is invalid in every boolean interpretation of $\mathbf A$.
Also known as
A contradiction is also known as:
- a logical falsehood or logical falsity
- a contravalid proposition
- an absurdity or absurdism, as the idea of a statement being both false and true at once is absurd.
Also seen:
However, on $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$, these terms are reserved for the analogous concepts for proof systems and formal semantics respectively.
Also see
- Results about contradiction can be found here.
Sources
- 1965: E.J. Lemmon: Beginning Logic ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $1$: The Propositional Calculus $1$: $3$ Conjunction and Disjunction
- 1973: Irving M. Copi: Symbolic Logic (4th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): $2$ Arguments Containing Compound Statements: $2.4$: Statement Forms
- 1977: Gary Chartrand: Introductory Graph Theory ... (previous) ... (next): Appendix $\text{A}.5$: Theorems and Proofs
- 1980: D.J. O'Connor and Betty Powell: Elementary Logic ... (previous) ... (next): $\S \text{I}: 3$: Logical Constants $(2)$
- 1998: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): contradiction
- 2000: Michael R.A. Huth and Mark D. Ryan: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and reasoning about systems ... (previous) ... (next): $\S 1.2.1$: Rules for natural deduction: Definition $1.19$
- 2008: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (4th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): contradiction
- 2014: Christopher Clapham and James Nicholson: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics (5th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): contradiction