Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum

"futurist" <adamgolding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> does A have to be atomic in the first case?

No.

> if A is not atomic, couldn't you have any number of '~' symbols
> 'inside' the A? (i.e. in the wff that A represents?)

Yes. What is the relevance of this observation?

.