Isn't this circular logic?












3












$begingroup$


Suppose you have A iff B iff C.



If you assume A to be true to prove B, B to be true to prove C, and C to be true to prove A, then doesn't that imply you've assumed A to be true to prove A?



I ask because of the method of proof in https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Well-Ordering_Principle_and_Induction.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You are not proving any of them. You are proving that they are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    7 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


Suppose you have A iff B iff C.



If you assume A to be true to prove B, B to be true to prove C, and C to be true to prove A, then doesn't that imply you've assumed A to be true to prove A?



I ask because of the method of proof in https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Well-Ordering_Principle_and_Induction.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You are not proving any of them. You are proving that they are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    7 hours ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


Suppose you have A iff B iff C.



If you assume A to be true to prove B, B to be true to prove C, and C to be true to prove A, then doesn't that imply you've assumed A to be true to prove A?



I ask because of the method of proof in https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Well-Ordering_Principle_and_Induction.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Suppose you have A iff B iff C.



If you assume A to be true to prove B, B to be true to prove C, and C to be true to prove A, then doesn't that imply you've assumed A to be true to prove A?



I ask because of the method of proof in https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Equivalence_of_Well-Ordering_Principle_and_Induction.







logic






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









Jossie CalderonJossie Calderon

18911




18911








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You are not proving any of them. You are proving that they are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    7 hours ago














  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You are not proving any of them. You are proving that they are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    7 hours ago








7




7




$begingroup$
You are not proving any of them. You are proving that they are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
You are not proving any of them. You are proving that they are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
7 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















14












$begingroup$

Yes, you are absolutely right the proof $A implies B implies C implies A$ only shows that $A,B,C$ are equivalent. So if one of them is true, all the others are true and if one is false all the others are false. However, the proof you linked doesn't try to show that the principle of mathematical/complete induction is true or the principle of well ordering is true, it only shows that they are equivalent. In fact, in the usual framework of mathematics these are taken as axioms. The proof shows that you only need to assume one of them as an axiom and you get all the others for free.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Or that if you prove from other things one of $A$, $B$ or $C$ (usually the easiest one), the others follow immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – Remellion
    1 hour ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3116692%2fisnt-this-circular-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









14












$begingroup$

Yes, you are absolutely right the proof $A implies B implies C implies A$ only shows that $A,B,C$ are equivalent. So if one of them is true, all the others are true and if one is false all the others are false. However, the proof you linked doesn't try to show that the principle of mathematical/complete induction is true or the principle of well ordering is true, it only shows that they are equivalent. In fact, in the usual framework of mathematics these are taken as axioms. The proof shows that you only need to assume one of them as an axiom and you get all the others for free.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Or that if you prove from other things one of $A$, $B$ or $C$ (usually the easiest one), the others follow immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – Remellion
    1 hour ago


















14












$begingroup$

Yes, you are absolutely right the proof $A implies B implies C implies A$ only shows that $A,B,C$ are equivalent. So if one of them is true, all the others are true and if one is false all the others are false. However, the proof you linked doesn't try to show that the principle of mathematical/complete induction is true or the principle of well ordering is true, it only shows that they are equivalent. In fact, in the usual framework of mathematics these are taken as axioms. The proof shows that you only need to assume one of them as an axiom and you get all the others for free.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Or that if you prove from other things one of $A$, $B$ or $C$ (usually the easiest one), the others follow immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – Remellion
    1 hour ago
















14












14








14





$begingroup$

Yes, you are absolutely right the proof $A implies B implies C implies A$ only shows that $A,B,C$ are equivalent. So if one of them is true, all the others are true and if one is false all the others are false. However, the proof you linked doesn't try to show that the principle of mathematical/complete induction is true or the principle of well ordering is true, it only shows that they are equivalent. In fact, in the usual framework of mathematics these are taken as axioms. The proof shows that you only need to assume one of them as an axiom and you get all the others for free.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Yes, you are absolutely right the proof $A implies B implies C implies A$ only shows that $A,B,C$ are equivalent. So if one of them is true, all the others are true and if one is false all the others are false. However, the proof you linked doesn't try to show that the principle of mathematical/complete induction is true or the principle of well ordering is true, it only shows that they are equivalent. In fact, in the usual framework of mathematics these are taken as axioms. The proof shows that you only need to assume one of them as an axiom and you get all the others for free.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 7 hours ago









Jannik PittJannik Pitt

573517




573517












  • $begingroup$
    Or that if you prove from other things one of $A$, $B$ or $C$ (usually the easiest one), the others follow immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – Remellion
    1 hour ago




















  • $begingroup$
    Or that if you prove from other things one of $A$, $B$ or $C$ (usually the easiest one), the others follow immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – Remellion
    1 hour ago


















$begingroup$
Or that if you prove from other things one of $A$, $B$ or $C$ (usually the easiest one), the others follow immediately.
$endgroup$
– Remellion
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
Or that if you prove from other things one of $A$, $B$ or $C$ (usually the easiest one), the others follow immediately.
$endgroup$
– Remellion
1 hour ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3116692%2fisnt-this-circular-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Усть-Каменогорск

Халкинская богословская школа

Высокополье (Харьковская область)