>>16772497
This. Proof by contradiction is too weak to validly establish anything. It fails at establishing relevancy between your premises (assumptions) and what you want to prove from your premises. Just because you can prove that the negation of what you want to prove leads to a contradiction, how does it follow that the positive follows? You need something stronger. A direct proof is much nicer. This is why we need to abandon the law of non-contradiction and start using paraconsistent logics, because you can't do proof by contradiction in those systems. But mathtards wanted to take a shortcut using """""classical logic"""""". lol.