Proving a Negative

[Progenitor A]

Mar 7, 2011 17:25:31 GMT 1 petergriffin said:

The only thing I can think of where a theroy is based on a negative is Fermat's last therom, which I think states the xn + yn <> zn where n <> 2 (I wish I could figure out how to get superscripts into the post) which is a negative, but it may be the way it is stated. I think it was more xn+yn=zn only where n=2. But the fact that it has been proved for all values of n then you could strech a point to say x3+y3 does not equal z3.

But thats now getting into symantics.

As for little green men on mars, how do you know there are none. Just because there is no evidence (yet) doesn't mean they dont exist.

I think this thread is proving a very good point, its much more difficult to prove a negative than you would think at first.

Surely the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is based on a negative: heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot
Dawkins an Hawking would say that the universe just happened and that there is no creator


Of course these two cannot be proved, although many negatives can.

Negatives are 'proved' every day in our courts

But a formal discussion will require a definition of 'negative' and 'proof'


(Incidentally to create a superscript or subscript, simply select the letter/number required and use the A^s or A_s symbols on top of th etext box in which you are typing your message)