|
Destructive Dilemma
Destructive dilemmaMoore and Parker is the name of a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if ''P'' implies ''Q'' and ''R'' implies ''S'' and either ''Q'' is false or ''S'' is false, then either ''P'' or ''R'' must be false. In sum, if two conditionals are true, but one of their consequents is false, then one of their antecedents has to be false. ''Destructive dilemma'' is the disjunctive version of ''modus tollens''. The disjunctive version of ''modus ponens'' is the constructive dilemma. The destructive dilemma rule can be stated: :\frac where the rule is that wherever instances of "P \to Q", "R \to S", and "\neg Q \lor \neg S" appear on lines of a proof, "\neg P \lor \neg R" can be placed on a subsequent line. Formal notation The ''destructive dilemma'' rule may be written in sequent notation: : (P \to Q), (R \to S), (\neg Q \lor \neg S) \vdash (\neg P \lor \neg R) where \vdash is a metalogical symbol meaning that \neg P \lor \neg R i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rule Of Inference
In the philosophy of logic, a rule of inference, inference rule or transformation rule is a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions). For example, the rule of inference called ''modus ponens'' takes two premises, one in the form "If p then q" and another in the form "p", and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation), then so is the conclusion. Typically, a rule of inference preserves truth, a semantic property. In many-valued logic, it preserves a general designation. But a rule of inference's action is purely syntactic, and does not need to preserve any semantic property: any function from sets of formulae to formulae counts as a rule of inference. Usually only rules that are recursive are important; i.e. rules suc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal System
A formal system is an abstract structure used for inferring theorems from axioms according to a set of rules. These rules, which are used for carrying out the inference of theorems from axioms, are the logical calculus of the formal system. A formal system is essentially an "axiomatic system". In 1921, David Hilbert proposed to use such a system as the foundation for the knowledge in mathematics. A formal system may represent a well-defined abstraction, system of abstract thought. The term ''formalism'' is sometimes a rough synonym for ''formal system'', but it also refers to a given style of notation, for example, Paul Dirac's bra–ket notation. Background Each formal system is described by primitive Symbol (formal), symbols (which collectively form an Alphabet (computer science), alphabet) to finitely construct a formal language from a set of axioms through inferential rules of formation. The system thus consists of valid formulas built up through finite combinations of the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rules Of Inference
In the philosophy of logic, a rule of inference, inference rule or transformation rule is a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions). For example, the rule of inference called ''modus ponens'' takes two premises, one in the form "If p then q" and another in the form "p", and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation), then so is the conclusion. Typically, a rule of inference preserves truth, a semantic property. In many-valued logic, it preserves a general designation. But a rule of inference's action is purely syntactic, and does not need to preserve any semantic property: any function from sets of formulae to formulae counts as a rule of inference. Usually only rules that are recursive are important; i.e. rules suc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Conjunction
In logic, mathematics and linguistics, And (\wedge) is the truth-functional operator of logical conjunction; the ''and'' of a set of operands is true if and only if ''all'' of its operands are true. The logical connective that represents this operator is typically written as \wedge or . A \land B is true if and only if A is true and B is true, otherwise it is false. An operand of a conjunction is a conjunct. Beyond logic, the term "conjunction" also refers to similar concepts in other fields: * In natural language, the denotation of expressions such as English "and". * In programming languages, the short-circuit and control structure. * In set theory, intersection. * In lattice theory, logical conjunction ( greatest lower bound). * In predicate logic, universal quantification. Notation And is usually denoted by an infix operator: in mathematics and logic, it is denoted by \wedge, or ; in electronics, ; and in programming languages, &, &&, or and. In Jan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Disjunctive Syllogism
In classical logic, disjunctive syllogism (historically known as ''modus tollendo ponens'' (MTP), Latin for "mode that affirms by denying") is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises. An example in English: # The breach is a safety violation, or it is not subject to fines. # The breach is not a safety violation. # Therefore, it is not subject to fines. Propositional logic In propositional logic, disjunctive syllogism (also known as disjunction elimination and or elimination, or abbreviated ∨E), is a valid rule of inference. If we are told that at least one of two statements is true; and also told that it is not the former that is true; we can infer that it has to be the latter that is true. If ''P'' is true or ''Q'' is true and ''P'' is false, then ''Q'' is true. The reason this is called "disjunctive syllogism" is that, first, it is a syllogism, a three-step argument, and second, it contains a logical disjunct ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Double Negation
In propositional logic, double negation is the theorem that states that "If a statement is true, then it is not the case that the statement is not true." This is expressed by saying that a proposition ''A'' is logically equivalent to ''not (not-A''), or by the formula A ≡ ~(~A) where the sign ≡ expresses logical equivalence and the sign ~ expresses negation. Like the law of the excluded middle, this principle is considered to be a law of thought in classical logic, but it is disallowed by intuitionistic logic. The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in ''Principia Mathematica'' as: :: \mathbf. \ \ \vdash.\ p \ \equiv \ \thicksim(\thicksim p)PM 1952 reprint of 2nd edition 1927 pp. 101–02, 117. ::"This is the principle of double negation, ''i.e.'' a proposition is equivalent of the falsehood of its negation." Elimination and introduction Double negation elimination and double negation introduction are two valid rules of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
De Morgan's Law
In propositional logic and Boolean algebra, De Morgan's laws, also known as De Morgan's theorem, are a pair of transformation rules that are both valid rules of inference. They are named after Augustus De Morgan, a 19th-century British mathematician. The rules allow the expression of conjunctions and disjunctions purely in terms of each other via negation. The rules can be expressed in English as: * The negation of a disjunction is the conjunction of the negations * The negation of a conjunction is the disjunction of the negations or * The complement of the union of two sets is the same as the intersection of their complements * The complement of the intersection of two sets is the same as the union of their complements or * not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B) * not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B) where "A or B" is an "inclusive or" meaning ''at least'' one of A or B rather than an "exclusive or" that means ''exactly'' one of A or B. In set theory and Boolean algebra, these a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Reductio Ad Absurdum
In logic, (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or ''apagogical arguments'', is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This argument form traces back to Ancient Greek philosophy and has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate. Examples The "absurd" conclusion of a ''reductio ad absurdum'' argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show: * The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, since Earth assumed to be finite in extent, we would find people falling off the edge. * There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one. The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Conditional Proof
A conditional proof is a proof that takes the form of asserting a conditional, and proving that the antecedent of the conditional necessarily leads to the consequent. Overview The assumed antecedent of a conditional proof is called the conditional proof assumption (CPA). Thus, the goal of a conditional proof is to demonstrate that if the CPA were true, then the desired conclusion necessarily follows. The validity of a conditional proof does not require that the CPA be true, only that ''if it were true'' it would lead to the consequent. Conditional proofs are of great importance in mathematics. Conditional proofs exist linking several otherwise unproven conjectures, so that a proof of one conjecture may immediately imply the validity of several others. It can be much easier to show a proposition's truth to follow from another proposition than to prove it independently. A famous network of conditional proofs is the NP-complete class of complexity theory. There is a large num ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Constructive Dilemma
Constructive dilemmaCopi and Cohen is a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if ''P'' implies ''Q'' and ''R'' implies ''S'' and either ''P'' or ''R'' is true, then either ''Q or S'' has to be true. In sum, if two conditionals are true and at least one of their antecedents is, then at least one of their consequents must be too. ''Constructive dilemma'' is the disjunctive version of modus ponens, whereas, destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of ''modus tollens''. The constructive dilemma rule can be stated: :\frac where the rule is that whenever instances of "P \to Q", "R \to S", and "P \lor R" appear on lines of a proof, "Q \lor S" can be placed on a subsequent line. Formal notation The ''constructive dilemma'' rule may be written in sequent notation: : (P \to Q), (R \to S), (P \lor R) \vdash (Q \lor S) where \vdash is a metalogical symbol meaning that Q \lor S is a syntactic consequence of P \to Q, R \to S, and P \lor R in som ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Conjunction Introduction
Conjunction introduction (often abbreviated simply as conjunction and also called and introduction or adjunction) is a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. The rule makes it possible to introduce a conjunction into a logical proof. It is the inference that if the proposition P is true, and the proposition Q is true, then the logical conjunction of the two propositions P and Q is true. For example, if it is true that "it is raining", and it is true that "the cat is inside", then it is true that "it is raining and the cat is inside". The rule can be stated: :\frac where the rule is that wherever an instance of "P" and "Q" appear on lines of a proof, a "P \land Q" can be placed on a subsequent line. Formal notation The ''conjunction introduction'' rule may be written in sequent notation: : P, Q \vdash P \land Q where P and Q are propositions expressed in some formal system, and \vdash is a metalogical symbol meaning that P \land Q is a syntactic consequence if P an ... [...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] |
