|
Immediate Inference
An immediate inference is an inference which can be made from only one statement or proposition. For instance, from the statement "All toads are green", the immediate inference can be made that "no toads are not green" or "no toads are non-green" (Obverse). There are a number of ''immediate inferences'' which can validly be made using logical operations, the result of which is a logically equivalent statement form to the given statement. There are also invalid immediate inferences which are syllogistic fallacies. Valid immediate inferences Converse *Given a type E statement, "No ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' that "No ''P'' are ''S''" which is the converse of the given statement. *Given a type I statement, "Some ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' that "Some ''P'' are ''S''" which is the converse of the given statement. Obverse *Given a type A statement, "All ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Inference
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word ''wikt:infer, infer'' means to "carry forward". Inference is theoretically traditionally divided into deductive reasoning, deduction and inductive reasoning, induction, a distinction that in Europe dates at least to Aristotle (300s BCE). Deduction is inference Formal proof, deriving Logical consequence, logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be truth, true, with the Rule of inference, laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular evidence to a Universal (metaphysics), universal conclusion. A third type of inference is sometimes distinguished, notably by Charles Sanders Peirce, contradistinguishing Abductive reasoning, abduction from induction. Various fields study how inference is done in practice. Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the fields of logic, argumentation stud ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Proposition
In logic and linguistics, a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. In philosophy, " meaning" is understood to be a non-linguistic entity which is shared by all sentences with the same meaning. Equivalently, a proposition is the non-linguistic bearer of truth or falsity which makes any sentence that expresses it either true or false. While the term "proposition" may sometimes be used in everyday language to refer to a linguistic statement which can be either true or false, the technical philosophical term, which differs from the mathematical usage, refers exclusively to the non-linguistic meaning behind the statement. The term is often used very broadly and can also refer to various related concepts, both in the history of philosophy and in contemporary analytic philosophy. It can generally be used to refer to some or all of the following: The primary bearers of truth values (such as "true" and "false"); the objects of belief and other propositional attitudes (i. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Validity (logic)
In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formulas (also called ''wffs'' or simply ''formulas''). The validity of an argument can be tested, proved or disproved, and depends on its logical form. Arguments In logic, an argument is a set of statements expressing the ''premises'' (whatever consists of empirical evidences and axiomatic truths) and an ''evidence-based conclusion.'' An argument is ''valid'' if and only if it would be contradictory for the conclusion to be false if all of the premises are true. Validity doesn't require the truth of the premises, ins ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Equivalence
In logic and mathematics, statements p and q are said to be logically equivalent if they have the same truth value in every model. The logical equivalence of p and q is sometimes expressed as p \equiv q, p :: q, \textsfpq, or p \iff q, depending on the notation being used. However, these symbols are also used for material equivalence, so proper interpretation would depend on the context. Logical equivalence is different from material equivalence, although the two concepts are intrinsically related. Logical equivalences In logic, many common logical equivalences exist and are often listed as laws or properties. The following tables illustrate some of these. General logical equivalences Logical equivalences involving conditional statements :#p \implies q \equiv \neg p \vee q :#p \implies q \equiv \neg q \implies \neg p :#p \vee q \equiv \neg p \implies q :#p \wedge q \equiv \neg (p \implies \neg q) :#\neg (p \implies q) \equiv p \wedge \neg q :#(p \implies q) \wedge (p \impli ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Syllogistic Fallacy
A syllogism ( grc-gre, συλλογισμός, ''syllogismos'', 'conclusion, inference') is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. In its earliest form (defined by Aristotle in his 350 BCE book ''Prior Analytics''), a syllogism arises when two true premises (propositions or statements) validly imply a conclusion, or the main point that the argument aims to get across. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed: Aristotelian syllogism and Stoic syllogism. From the Middle Ages onwards, ''categorical syllogism'' and ''syllogism'' were usually used interchangeably. This ar ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Transposition (logic)
In propositional logic, transposition is a valid rule of replacement that permits one to switch the antecedent with the consequent of a conditional statement in a logical proof if they are also both negated. It is the inference from the truth of "''A'' implies ''B''" to the truth of "Not-''B'' implies not-''A''", and conversely. It is very closely related to the rule of inference modus tollens. It is the rule that (P \to Q) \Leftrightarrow (\neg Q \to \neg P) where "\Leftrightarrow" is a metalogical symbol representing "can be replaced in a proof with". Formal notation The ''transposition'' rule may be expressed as a sequent: :(P \to Q) \vdash (\neg Q \to \neg P) where \vdash is a metalogical symbol meaning that (\neg Q \to \neg P) is a syntactic consequence of (P \to Q) in some logical system; or as a rule of inference: :\frac where the rule is that wherever an instance of "P \to Q" appears on a line of a proof, it can be replaced with "\neg Q \to \neg P"; or a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Inverse (logic)
In logic, an inverse is a type of conditional sentence which is an immediate inference made from another conditional sentence. More specifically, given a conditional sentence of the form P \rightarrow Q , the inverse refers to the sentence \neg P \rightarrow \neg Q . Since an inverse is the contrapositive of the converse, inverse and converse are logically equivalent to each other. For example, substituting propositions in natural language for logical variables, the inverse of the following conditional proposition :"If it's raining, then Sam will meet Jack at the movies." would be :"If it's not raining, then Sam will not meet Jack at the movies." The inverse of the inverse, that is, the inverse of \neg P \rightarrow \neg Q , is \neg \neg P \rightarrow \neg \neg Q , and since the double negation of any statement is equivalent to the original statement in classical logic, the inverse of the inverse is logically equivalent to the original conditional P \rightarrow Q . Thus it i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Immediate Inference
An immediate inference is an inference which can be made from only one statement or proposition. For instance, from the statement "All toads are green", the immediate inference can be made that "no toads are not green" or "no toads are non-green" (Obverse). There are a number of ''immediate inferences'' which can validly be made using logical operations, the result of which is a logically equivalent statement form to the given statement. There are also invalid immediate inferences which are syllogistic fallacies. Valid immediate inferences Converse *Given a type E statement, "No ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' that "No ''P'' are ''S''" which is the converse of the given statement. *Given a type I statement, "Some ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' that "Some ''P'' are ''S''" which is the converse of the given statement. Obverse *Given a type A statement, "All ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Validity (logic)")
