|
Modus Tollens
In propositional logic, ''modus tollens'' () (MT), also known as ''modus tollendo tollens'' (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. ''Modus tollens'' takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from ''P implies Q'' to ''the negation of Q implies the negation of P'' is a valid argument. The history of the inference rule ''modus tollens'' goes back to antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument form ''modus tollens'' was Theophrastus. ''Modus tollens'' is closely related to '' modus ponens''. There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. See also contraposition and proof by contrapositive. Explanation The form of a ''modus tollens'' argument resembles a syllog ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences. An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. if 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. Some theorists define 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. Psychology is interested in deductive reasoning as a psychological process, i.e. how people ''actually'' draw ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (''SEP'') combines an online encyclopedia of philosophy with peer-reviewed publication of original papers in philosophy, freely accessible to Internet users. It is maintained by Stanford University. Each entry is written and maintained by an expert in the field, including professors from many academic institutions worldwide. Authors contributing to the encyclopedia give Stanford University the permission to publish the articles, but retain the copyright to those articles. Approach and history As of August 5th, 2022, the ''SEP'' has 1,774 published entries. Apart from its online status, the encyclopedia uses the traditional academic approach of most encyclopedias and academic journals to achieve quality by means of specialist authors selected by an editor or an editorial committee that is competent (although not necessarily considered specialists) in the field covered by the encyclopedia and peer review. The encyclopedia was created in 1 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sequent
In mathematical logic, a sequent is a very general kind of conditional assertion. : A_1,\,\dots,A_m \,\vdash\, B_1,\,\dots,B_n. A sequent may have any number ''m'' of condition formulas ''Ai'' (called " antecedents") and any number ''n'' of asserted formulas ''Bj'' (called "succedents" or "consequents"). A sequent is understood to mean that if all of the antecedent conditions are true, then at least one of the consequent formulas is true. This style of conditional assertion is almost always associated with the conceptual framework of sequent calculus. Introduction The form and semantics of sequents Sequents are best understood in the context of the following three kinds of logical judgments: Unconditional assertion. No antecedent formulas. * Example: ⊢ ''B'' * Meaning: ''B'' is true. Conditional assertion. Any number of antecedent formulas. Simple conditional assertion. Single consequent formula. * Example: ''A1'', ''A2'', ''A3'' ⊢ ''B'' * Meaning: IF ''A1'' AND ''A ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal Proof
In logic and mathematics, a formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a formal language), each of which is an axiom, an assumption, or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference. It differs from a natural language argument in that it is rigorous, unambiguous and mechanically verifiable. If the set of assumptions is empty, then the last sentence in a formal proof is called a theorem of the formal system. The notion of theorem is not in general effective, therefore there may be no method by which we can always find a proof of a given sentence or determine that none exists. The concepts of Fitch-style proof, sequent calculus and natural deduction are generalizations of the concept of proof. The theorem is a syntactic consequence of all the well-formed formulas preceding it in the proof. For a well-formed formula to qualify as part of a proof, it must be the result of applying a rule of th ... [...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 In propositional logic, ''modus tollens'' () (MT), also known as ''modus tollendo tollens'' (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a 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 (formal), 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 mea ... [...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 an implication, if \phi implies \psi then \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. * If men have walked on the moon, then I am the king of France. Here, "men have walked on the moon" is the antecedent. Let y=x+1. If x=1 then y=2 See also * Consequent * Affirming the consequent (fallacy) * Denying the antecedent (fallacy) * Necessity ... [...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 su ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Material Conditional
The material conditional (also known as material implication) is an operation commonly used in logic. When the conditional symbol \rightarrow is interpreted as material implication, a formula P \rightarrow Q is true unless P is true and Q is false. Material implication can also be characterized inferentially by modus ponens, modus tollens, conditional proof, and classical reductio ad absurdum. Material implication is used in all the basic systems of classical logic as well as some nonclassical logics. It is assumed as a model of correct conditional reasoning within mathematics and serves as the basis for commands in many programming languages. However, many logics replace material implication with other operators such as the strict conditional and the variably strict conditional. Due to the paradoxes of material implication and related problems, material implication is not generally considered a viable analysis of conditional sentences in natural language. Notation In l ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Syllogism
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 a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Proof By Contrapositive
In logic, the contrapositive of a conditional statement is formed by negating both terms and reversing the direction of inference. More specifically, the contrapositive of the statement "if ''A'', then ''B''" is "if not ''B'', then not ''A''." A statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent, in the sense that if the statement is true, then its contrapositive is true and vice versa. In mathematics, proof by contrapositive, or proof by contraposition, is a rule of inference used in proofs, where one infers a conditional statement from its contrapositive. In other words, the conclusion "if ''A'', then ''B''" is inferred by constructing a proof of the claim "if not ''B'', then not ''A''" instead. More often than not, this approach is preferred if the contrapositive is easier to prove than the original conditional statement itself. Logically, the validity of proof by contrapositive can be demonstrated by the use of the following truth table, where it is shown that ''p'' â ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contraposition
In logic and mathematics, contraposition refers to the inference of going from a conditional statement into its logically equivalent contrapositive, and an associated proof method known as Proof by contrapositive, proof by contraposition. The contrapositive of a statement has its Antecedent (logic), antecedent and consequent Inverse (logic), inverted and Conversion (logic), flipped. Material conditional, Conditional statement P \rightarrow Q. In Logical connective, formulas: the contrapositive of P \rightarrow Q is \neg Q \rightarrow \neg P . If ''P'', Then ''Q''. — If not ''Q'', Then not ''P''. ''"''If ''it is raining,'' then ''I wear my coat" —'' "If ''I don't wear my coat,'' then ''it isn't raining."'' The law of contraposition says that a conditional statement is true if, and only if, its contrapositive is true. The contrapositive ( \neg Q \rightarrow \neg P ) can be compared with three other statements: ;Inverse (logic), Inversion (the inverse), \neg P \rightarrow \ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Denying The Antecedent
Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: :If ''P'', then ''Q''. :Therefore, if not ''P'', then not ''Q''. which may also be phrased as :P \rightarrow Q (P implies Q) :\therefore \neg P \rightarrow \neg Q (therefore, not-P implies not-Q) Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. In this example, a valid conclusion would be: ~P or Q. The name ''denying the antecedent'' derives from the premise "not ''P''", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with an example that has true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: :If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job. :You are not a ski ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Deductive Reasoning")
