Got the Memo Yet? You Can Indeed Prove a Negative!

[icehorse]

Back to the OP, I'd say: Outside of the domains of logic and math, you cannot prove a negative.

 

[icehorse]

Weird.
Is that a common convention?
I'd use =/= for an inequality.

programmers would say: x != y // i.e. x not equal to y, the whitespace being important

I also thought 2!=2 (with no spaces), was a factorial

 

[Sunstone]

Back to the OP, I'd say: Outside of the domains of logic and math, you cannot prove a negative.

Why can't you? Just curious. I'm not debating today.

 

[Polymath257]

Weird.
Is that a common convention?
I'd use =/= for an inequality.

It is a convention in many programming languages. I was *hoping* to minimize confusion, but clearly I failed in that.

 

[Polymath257]

programmers would say: x != y // i.e. x not equal to y, the whitespace being important

I also thought 2!=2 (with no spaces), was a factorial

Most languages I know don't consider the whitespace as important for parsing. it certainly helps with communication, though.....

*sigh*

 

[Sunstone]

I was *hoping* to minimize confusion, but clearly I failed in that.

That's the story of my life too! My friend! My brother!

 

[Revoltingest]

programmers would say: x != y // i.e. x not equal to y, the whitespace being important

I also thought 2!=2 (with no spaces), was a factorial

Dang, not in any programming language I ever used.
(But then, computers had vacuum tubes in my day.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Usually, though, the claim that you can't prove a negative is actually a claim that you cna't prove the non-existence of something. Well, of course, that is also incorrect. You can prove the non-existence of any x with x!=x.

Example please . . .

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a convention in many programming languages. I was *hoping* to minimize confusion, but clearly I failed in that.

You have to really dumb things down for some of us around hear.
(See....I can't even spell.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Despite the end result that a negative is proven?

False, it is a contradiction that is proven and NOT a negative.

 

[MonkeyFire]

God can prove nothing to be a falsehood... its Nothing with no opinon what so ever even of itself.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why can't you? Just curious. I'm not debating today.

First, the examples provided using a negative statement are not truly proving a negative. Second, I am waiting for an example of actual proving a negative that is not a fallacy other than a contradiction and a factorial.

There are many negative statements in hypothesis that are falsifiable in science such a hypothesis might be word worded as a negative statement: Falsify that these fossil bones do not belong to species x. The results would a positive answer whether the bones belong to species x, or an unknown or known species y..

 

[Polymath257]

False, it is a contradiction that is proven and NOT a negative.

No, the statement that there is no x with x not equal to x is proven. That is a negative.

But I can go much farther. I can prove there is not an adult African elephant in my office by simply looking in my office. The fact that I don't see one *and* that any such elephant would be quite visible is enough to show the non-existence.

 

[Polymath257]

False, it is a contradiction that is proven and NOT a negative.

(p=> ~p) => ~p

The contradiction proves the negative.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, the statement that there is no x with x not equal to x is proven. That is a negative.

False, you are not truly proving a negative proposition that an unknown x exist does not exist. Unless you are going to be specific you are dealing with a known x. You need to word this in actual example of an unknown like God, and try to prove God does not exist.

But I can go much farther. I can prove there is not an adult African elephant in my office by simply looking in my office. The fact that I don't see one *and* that any such elephant would be quite visible is enough to show the non-existence.

No better at all.

This fails, because you are not trying to prove that African elephants do not exist, ie the 'black swan fallacy.' You are simply confirming whether the elephant is in the room or not. If the unknown animal in the room does not have peanut breath, it is proven not to be an elephant.

A true proving the negative cannot be equated to empirically or mathmatically determining the presence of a known object nor a given known math variable such as one designated as x

If you propose to prove a purple elephant with pink strips does not exist. You have a true fallacy on your hands.

 

[shunyadragon]

(p=> ~p) => ~p

The contradiction proves the negative.

No cigar here nor brass ring.

Provide a real life example. All I see here is trying to prove the contradiction. Negative statements in math, science and logic are not necessarily the fallacy of proving the negative,

 

[icehorse]

Why can't you? Just curious. I'm not debating today.

Aha! if we're not careful this could be one of those tricky, self-referential paradox thingies.

I agree with the examples in the OP. That said, I can't think of any other examples outside the domain of logic and math. Can you?

 

[Polymath257]

False, you are not truly proving a negative proposition that an unknown x exist does not exist. Unless you are going to be specific you are dealing with a known x. You need to word this in actual example of an unknown like God, and try to prove God does not exist.



No better at all.

This fails, because you are not trying to prove that African elephants do not exist, ie the 'black swan fallacy.' You are simply confirming whether the elephant is in the room or not. If the unknown animal in the room does not have peanut breath, it is proven not to be an elephant.

A true proving the negative cannot be equated to empirically or mathmatically determining the presence of a known object nor a given known math variable such as one designated as x

If you propose to prove a purple elephant with pink strips does not exist. You have a true fallacy on your hands.

On the contrary, I proved that no elephants exist in my room. That is a proof of a negative: the non-existence of elephants with a certain property.

The 'confirmation' is one of non-existence of such elephants.

 

[Curious George]

Aha! if we're not careful this could be one of those tricky, self-referential paradox thingies.

I agree with the examples in the OP. That said, I can't think of any other examples outside the domain of logic and math. Can you?

You do not believe you can prove something is impossible outside of math? Can you prove anything outside of logic?

 

[Astravalon]

I always figured that if I wanted to prove a negative, I
would just first convert the negative into a positive.

So while I might not be able to prove that unicorns don't
exist, I would instead try to prove that the absence of
unicorns does exist.

Okay this is making me dizzy....