When we use the Resolution Principle we try to deduce a logical consequences from 2 clauses.
The set of clauses is unsatisfable , if we get a empty clause.
What i dont understand is : in practice, an empty clause is simply false. So, what proof that the set of clauses is unsatisfable is a paradox , am i correct ?
ps:i intend the paradox as the fact that a model of the clauses should be the model of a false statement.
pss: if it's true. How is possible that a logical consequence can lead to a paradox ? This seems mathematically strange to me :S