|
Monotonicity Of Entailment
Monotonicity of entailment is a property of many logical systems such that if a sentence follows deductively from a given set of sentences then it also follows deductively from any superset of those sentences. A corollary is that if a given argument is deductively valid, it cannot become invalid by the addition of extra premises. Logical systems with this property are called monotonic logics in order to differentiate them from non-monotonic logics. Classical logic and intuitionistic logic are examples of monotonic logics. Weakening rule Monotonicity may be stated formally as a rule called weakening, or sometimes thinning. A system is monotonic if and only if the rule is admissible. The weakening rule may be expressed as a natural deduction sequent: :\frac This can be read as saying that if, on the basis of a set of assumptions \Gamma, one can prove C, then by adding an assumption A, one can still prove C. Example The following argument is valid: "All men are mortal. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical System
A formal system is an abstract structure and formalization of an axiomatic system used for deducing, using rules of inference, theorems from axioms. In 1921, David Hilbert proposed to use formal systems as the foundation of knowledge in mathematics. 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. Concepts A formal system has the following: * Formal language, which is a set of well-formed formulas, which are strings of symbols from an alphabet, formed by a formal grammar (consisting of production rules or formation rules). * Deductive system, deductive apparatus, or proof system, which has rules of inference that take axioms and infers theorems, both of which are part of the formal language. A formal system is said to be recursive (i.e. effective) or recursively enumerable if the set of axioms and the set of inference rules are decidable set ... [...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 related statements expressing the ''premises'' (which may consists of non-empirical evidence, empirical evidence or may contain some axiomatic truths) and a ''necessary conclusion based on the relationship of the premises.'' An argument is ''valid'' if and only if it would be contradictory for the conclusion to be false if all o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Non-monotonic Logic
A non-monotonic logic is a formal logic whose entailment relation is not monotonic. In other words, non-monotonic logics are devised to capture and represent defeasible inferences, i.e., a kind of inference in which reasoners draw tentative conclusions, enabling reasoners to retract their conclusion(s) based on further evidence. Most studied formal logics have a monotonic entailment relation, meaning that adding a formula to the hypotheses never produces a pruning of its set of conclusions. Intuitively, monotonicity indicates that learning a new piece of knowledge cannot reduce the set of what is known. Monotonic logics cannot handle various reasoning tasks such as reasoning by default (conclusions may be derived only because of lack of evidence of the contrary), abductive reasoning (conclusions are only deduced as most likely explanations), some important approaches to reasoning about knowledge (the ignorance of a conclusion must be retracted when the conclusion becomes known), ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Classical Logic
Classical logic (or standard logic) or Frege–Russell logic is the intensively studied and most widely used class of deductive logic. Classical logic has had much influence on analytic philosophy. Characteristics Each logical system in this class shares characteristic properties: Gabbay, Dov, (1994). 'Classical vs non-classical logic'. In D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, and J.A. Robinson, (Eds), ''Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming'', volume 2, chapter 2.6. Oxford University Press. # Law of excluded middle and double negation elimination # Law of noncontradiction, and the principle of explosion # Monotonicity of entailment and idempotency of entailment # Commutativity of conjunction # De Morgan duality: every logical operator is dual to another While not entailed by the preceding conditions, contemporary discussions of classical logic normally only include propositional and first-order logics. Shapiro, Stewart (2000). Classical Logic. In St ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Intuitionistic Logic
Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not assume the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic. Formalized intuitionistic logic was originally developed by Arend Heyting to provide a formal basis for L. E. J. Brouwer's programme of intuitionism. From a proof-theoretic perspective, Heyting’s calculus is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination have been removed. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic. The standard explanation of intuitionistic logic is the BHK interpre ... [...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] |
Metatheorem
In logic, a metatheorem is a statement about a formal system proven in a metalanguage. Unlike theorems proved within a given formal system, a metatheorem is proved within a metatheory, and may reference concepts that are present in the metatheory but not the object theory. A formal system is determined by a formal language and a deductive system (axioms and rules of inference). The formal system can be used to prove particular sentences of the formal language with that system. Metatheorems, however, are proved externally to the system in question, in its metatheory. Common metatheories used in logic are set theory (especially in model theory) and primitive recursive arithmetic (especially in proof theory). Rather than demonstrating particular sentences to be provable, metatheorems may show that each of a broad class of sentences can be proved, or show that certain sentences cannot be proved. Examples Examples of metatheorems include: * The deduction theorem for first-order log ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Relevance Logic
Relevance logic, also called relevant logic, is a kind of non-classical logic requiring the antecedent and consequent of implications to be relevantly related. They may be viewed as a family of substructural or modal logics. It is generally, but not universally, called ''relevant logic'' by British and, especially, Australian logicians, and ''relevance logic'' by American logicians. Relevance logic aims to capture aspects of implication that are ignored by the " material implication" operator in classical truth-functional logic, namely the notion of relevance between antecedent and conditional of a true implication. This idea is not new: C. I. Lewis was led to invent modal logic, and specifically strict implication, on the grounds that classical logic grants paradoxes of material implication such as the principle that a falsehood implies any proposition. Hence "if I'm a donkey, then two and two is four" is true when translated as a material implication, yet it seems int ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Linear Logic
Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by French logician Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter. Although the logic has also been studied for its own sake, more broadly, ideas from linear logic have been influential in fields such as programming languages, game semantics, and quantum physics (because linear logic can be seen as the logic of quantum information theory), as well as linguistics, particularly because of its emphasis on resource-boundedness, duality, and interaction. Linear logic lends itself to many different presentations, explanations, and intuitions. Proof-theoretically, it derives from an analysis of classical sequent calculus in which uses of (the structural rules) contraction and weakening are carefully controlled. Operationally, this means that logical deduction is no longer merely about an ever-expanding collection of pe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Idempotency Of Entailment
In the logical discipline of proof theory, a structural rule is an inference rule of a sequent calculus that does not refer to any logical connective but instead operates on the sequents directly. Structural rules often mimic the intended meta-theoretic properties of the logic. Logics that deny one or more of the structural rules are classified as substructural logics. Common structural rules Three common structural rules are: * , where the hypotheses or conclusion of a sequence may be extended with additional members. In symbolic form weakening rules can be written as \frac on the left of the turnstile, and \frac on the right. Known as monotonicity of entailment in classical logic. * , where two equal (or unifiable) members on the same side of a sequent may be replaced by a single member (or common instance). Symbolically: \frac and \frac. Also known as factoring in automated theorem proving systems using resolution. Known as idempotency of entailment in classical logic. * Exch ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
