|
Modus Ponens
In propositional logic, (; MP), also known as (), implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent, is a deductive argument form and rule of inference. It can be summarized as "''P'' implies ''Q.'' ''P'' is true. Therefore, ''Q'' must also be true." ''Modus ponens'' is a mixed hypothetical syllogism and is closely related to another valid form of argument, '' modus tollens''. Both have apparently similar but invalid forms: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Constructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of ''modus ponens''. The history of ''modus ponens'' goes back to antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument form ''modus ponens'' was Theophrastus. It, along with '' modus tollens'', is one of the standard patterns of inference that can be applied to derive chains of conclusions that lead to the desired goal. Explanation The form of a ''modus ponens'' argument is a mixed hypothetical syllogism, with two premises and a con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For example, the inference from the premises "all men are mortal" and " Socrates is a man" to the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is deductively valid. An argument is ''sound'' if it is valid ''and'' all its premises are true. One approach defines deduction in terms of the intentions of the author: they have to intend for the premises to offer deductive support to the conclusion. With the help of this modification, it is possible to distinguish valid from invalid deductive reasoning: it is invalid if the author's belief about the deductive support is false, but even invalid deductive reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning. Deductive logic studies under what conditions an argument is valid. According to the semantic approach, an argument is valid ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Susanne Bobzien
Susanne Bobzien (born 1960) is a German-born philosopherWho'sWho in America 2012, 64th Edition whose research interests focus on philosophy of logic and language, determinism and freedom, and ancient philosophy. She is currently a visiting research fellow at Princeton University and professor emerita and a quondam fellow at Oxford University and All Souls College, Oxford. Early life Bobzien was born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1960. She graduated in 1985 with an M.A. at Bonn University, and in 1993 with a doctorate in philosophy (D.Phil.) at Oxford University, where from 1987 to 1989 she was affiliated with Somerville College. Academic career Bobzien was a tutorial fellow in philosophy at Balliol College, Oxford from 1989 to 1990, fellow and praelector in philosophy at The Queen's College, Oxford from 1990 to 2002, and CUF Lecturer in Philosophy at Oxford University from 1993 to 2002. She was appointed to a senior professorship in philosophy at Yale in 2001 [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Function Application
In mathematics, function application is the act of applying a function to an argument from its domain so as to obtain the corresponding value from its range. In this sense, function application can be thought of as the opposite of function abstraction. Representation Function application is usually depicted by juxtaposing the variable representing the function with its argument encompassed in parentheses. For example, the following expression represents the application of the function ''ƒ'' to its argument ''x''. :f(x) In some instances, a different notation is used where the parentheses aren't required, and function application can be expressed just by juxtaposition. For example, the following expression can be considered the same as the previous one: :f\; x The latter notation is especially useful in combination with the currying isomorphism. Given a function f : (X \times Y) \to Z, its application is represented as f(x, y) by the former notation and f\;(x,y) (or f \ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Curry–Howard Correspondence
In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs. It is also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation. It is a generalization of a syntactic analogy between systems of formal logic and computational calculi that was first discovered by the American mathematician Haskell Curry and the logician William Alvin Howard. It is the link between logic and computation that is usually attributed to Curry and Howard, although the idea is related to the operational interpretation of intuitionistic logic given in various formulations by L. E. J. Brouwer, Arend Heyting and Andrey Kolmogorov (see Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation) and Stephen Kleene (see Realizability). The relationship has been extended to include category theory as the three-way Curry–Howard–Lambe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Admissible Rule
In logic, a rule of inference is admissible in a formal system if the set of theorems of the system does not change when that rule is added to the existing rules of the system. In other words, every formula that can be derived using that rule is already derivable without that rule, so, in a sense, it is redundant. The concept of an admissible rule was introduced by Paul Lorenzen (1955). Definitions Admissibility has been systematically studied only in the case of structural (i.e. substitution-closed) rules in propositional non-classical logics, which we will describe next. Let a set of basic propositional connectives be fixed (for instance, \ in the case of superintuitionistic logics, or \ in the case of monomodal logics). Well-formed formulas are built freely using these connectives from a countably infinite set of propositional variables ''p''0, ''p''1, .... A substitution ''σ'' is a function from formulas to formulas that commutes with applications of the connectives ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cut-elimination Theorem
The cut-elimination theorem (or Gentzen's ''Hauptsatz'') is the central result establishing the significance of the sequent calculus. It was originally proved by Gerhard Gentzen in part I of his landmark 1935 paper "Investigations in Logical Deduction" for the systems LJ and LK formalising intuitionistic and classical logic respectively. The cut-elimination theorem states that any judgement that possesses a proof in the sequent calculus making use of the cut rule also possesses a cut-free proof, that is, a proof that does not make use of the cut rule. The Natural Deduction version of cut-elimination, known as ''normalization theorem'', has been first proved for a variety of logics by Dag Prawitz in 1965 (a similar but less general proof was given the same year by Andrès Raggio). The cut rule A sequent is a logical expression relating multiple formulas, in the form , which is to be read as "If all of hold, then at least one of must hold", or (as Gentzen glossed): "If (A_1 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sequent Calculus
In mathematical logic, sequent calculus is a style of formal logical argumentation in which every line of a proof is a conditional tautology (called a sequent by Gerhard Gentzen) instead of an unconditional tautology. Each conditional tautology is inferred from other conditional tautologies on earlier lines in a formal argument according to rules and procedures of inference, giving a better approximation to the natural style of deduction used by mathematicians than David Hilbert's earlier style of formal logic, in which every line was an unconditional tautology. More subtle distinctions may exist; for example, propositions may implicitly depend upon non-logical axioms. In that case, sequents signify conditional theorems of a first-order theory rather than conditional tautologies. Sequent calculus is one of several extant styles of proof calculus for expressing line-by-line logical arguments. * Hilbert style. Every line is an unconditional tautology (or theorem). * Gentzen s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion. Arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion. The process of crafting or delivering arguments, argumentation, can be studied from three main perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective. In logic, an argument is usually expressed not in natural language but in a symbolic formal language, and it can be defined as any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others through deductively valid inferences that preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. This logical perspective on argument is relevant for scientific fields such as mathematics and computer science. Logic is the study of the form ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Soundness
In logic and deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both Validity (logic), valid in form and has no false premises. Soundness has a related meaning in mathematical logic, wherein a Formal system, formal system of logic is sound if and only if every well-formed formula that can be proven in the system is logically valid with respect to the Semantics of logic, logical semantics of the system. Definition In deductive reasoning, a sound argument is an argument that is Validity (logic), valid and all of its premises are true (and as a consequence its conclusion is true as well). An argument is valid if, assuming its premises are true, the conclusion ''must be'' true. An example of a sound argument is the following well-known syllogism: : ''(premises)'' : All men are mortal. : Socrates is a man. : ''(conclusion)'' : Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Because of the logical necessity of the conclusion, this argument is valid; and because the argument is valid and its premises ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Truth
Truth or verity is the Property (philosophy), property of being in accord with fact or reality.Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionarytruth, 2005 In everyday language, it is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences. True statements are usually held to be the opposite of false statement, false statements. The concept of truth is discussed and debated in various contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, law, and science. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion, including journalism and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself. Most commonly, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world. This is called the correspon ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Consequent
A consequent is the second half of a hypothetical proposition. In the standard form of such a proposition, it is the part that follows "then". In an implication, if ''P'' implies ''Q'', then ''P'' is called the antecedent and ''Q'' is called the consequent. In some contexts, the consequent is called the ''apodosis''.See Conditional sentence. Examples: * If P, then Q. Q is the consequent of this hypothetical proposition. * If X is a mammal, then X is an animal. Here, "X is an animal" is the consequent. * If computers can think, then they are alive. "They are alive" is the consequent. The consequent in a hypothetical proposition is not necessarily a consequence of the antecedent. * If monkeys are purple, then fish speak Klingon. "Fish speak Klingon" is the consequent here, but intuitively is not a consequence of (nor does it have anything to do with) the claim made in the antecedent that "monkeys are purple". See also * Antecedent (logic) * Conjecture * Necessity and s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Antecedent (logic)
An antecedent is the first half of a hypothetical proposition, whenever the if-clause precedes the then-clause. In some contexts the antecedent is called the ''protasis''. Examples: * If P, then Q. This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q. In the implication "\phi implies \psi", \phi is called the antecedent and \psi is called the consequent.Sets, Functions and Logic - An Introduction to Abstract Mathematics, Keith Devlin, Chapman & Hall/CRC Mathematics, 3rd ed., 2004 Antecedent and consequent are connected via logical connective to form a proposition. * If X is a man, then X is mortal. "X is a man" is the antecedent for this proposition while "X is mortal" is the consequent of the proposition. * If men have walked on the Moon, then I am the king of France. Here, "men have walked on the Moon" is the antecedent and "I am the king of France" is the consequent. Let y=x+1. * If x=1 then y=2,. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
