|
Proof By Example
In logic and mathematics, proof by example (sometimes known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases—rather than a full-fledged proof. The structure, argument form and formal form of a proof by example generally proceeds as follows: Structure: :I know that ''X'' is such. :Therefore, anything related to ''X'' is also such. Argument form: :I know that ''x'', which is a member of group ''X'', has the property ''P''. :Therefore, all other elements of ''X'' must have the property ''P''. Formal form: :\exists x:P(x)\;\;\vdash\;\;\forall x:P(x) The following example demonstrates why this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy: : I've seen a person shoot someone dead. : Therefore, all people are murderers. In the common discourse, a proof by example can also be used to describe an attempt to establish a claim using statistically insignificant examples. In which case, the merit of ea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" leading to the conclusion "I don't have to wor ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Proof By Contradiction
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or the validity of a proposition by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of nonconstructive proof as universally valid. More broadly, proof by contradiction is any form of argument that establishes a statement by arriving at a contradiction, even when the initial assumption is not the negation of the statement to be proved. In this general sense, proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, and ''reductio ad impossibile''. A mathematical proof employing proof by contradiction usually proceeds as follows: #The proposition to be proved is ''P''. #We assume ''P'' to be false, i.e., we assume ''¬P''. #It is then shown that ''¬P'' implies falsehood. This is typically accomplished by deriving two mutually ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Proof By Intimidation
Proof by intimidation (or ''argumentum verbosum'') is a humorous phrase used mainly in mathematics to refer to a specific form of hand-waving whereby one attempts to advance an argument by giving an argument loaded with jargon and obscure results or by marking it as obvious or trivial. It attempts to intimidate the audience into simply accepting the result without evidence by appealing to their ignorance or lack of understanding. The phrase is often used when the author is an authority in their field, presenting their proof to people who respect ''a priori'' the author's insistence of the validity of the proof, while in other cases, the author might simply claim that their statement is true because it is trivial or because they say so. Usage of this phrase is for the most part in good humour, though it can also appear in serious criticism. A proof by intimidation is often associated with phrases such as: * "Clearly..." * "It is self-evident that..." * "It can be easily shown tha ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Proof By Construction
In mathematics, a constructive proof is a method of proof that demonstrates the existence of a mathematical object by creating or providing a method for creating the object. This is in contrast to a non-constructive proof (also known as an existence proof or ''pure existence theorem''), which proves the existence of a particular kind of object without providing an example. For avoiding confusion with the stronger concept that follows, such a constructive proof is sometimes called an effective proof. A constructive proof may also refer to the stronger concept of a proof that is valid in constructive mathematics. Constructivism is a mathematical philosophy that rejects all proof methods that involve the existence of objects that are not explicitly built. This excludes, in particular, the use of the law of the excluded middle, the axiom of infinity, and the axiom of choice. Constructivism also induces a different meaning for some terminology (for example, the term "or" has a stronger ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
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] |
Problem Of Induction
The problem of induction is a philosophical problem that questions the rationality of predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. These inferences from the observed to the unobserved are known as "inductive inferences". David Hume, who first formulated the problem in 1739, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences, while he acknowledged that everyone does and must make such inferences. The traditional Inductivism, inductivist view is that all claimed Empirical evidence, empirical laws, either in everyday life or through the scientific method, can be justified through some form of reasoning. The problem is that many philosophers tried to find such a justification but their proposals were not accepted by others. Identifying the inductivist view as the scientific view, C. D. Broad once said that induction is "the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy". In contrast, Karl Popper's critical rationalism claimed that indu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of method of reasoning, methods of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is supported not with deductive certainty, but with some degree of probability. Unlike Deductive reasoning, ''deductive'' reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion is ''certain'', given the premises are correct, inductive reasoning produces conclusions that are at best ''probable'', given the evidence provided. Types The types of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, statistical syllogism, argument from analogy, and causal inference. There are also differences in how their results are regarded. Inductive generalization A generalization (more accurately, an ''inductive generalization'') proceeds from premises about a Sample (statistics), sample to a conclusion about the statistical population, population. The observation obtained from this sample is projected onto the broader population. : The proportion Q of the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hand-waving
Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial. Cites the ''Random House Dictionary'' and ''The Dictionary of American Slang'' 4th ed. It is often applied to debating techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details. Online edition:Homepagementions a ver. 4.4.8, but the text of the work say It is also used academically to indicate unproven claims and skipped steps in proofs (sometimes intentionally, as in lectures and instructional materials), with some specific meanings in particular fields, including literary criticism, speculative fiction, mathematics, logic, science and engineering. The term can additionally be used in work situations, when attempts are made to display productivity or assure accountability without actually resulting in them. The term can also be used as a self-admission of, and suggestion ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Counterexample
A counterexample is any exception to a generalization. In logic a counterexample disproves the generalization, and does so rigorously in the fields of mathematics and philosophy. For example, the fact that "student John Smith is not lazy" is a counterexample to the generalization "students are lazy", and both a counterexample to, and disproof of, the universal quantification "all students are lazy." In mathematics In mathematics, counterexamples are often used to prove the boundaries of possible theorems. By using counterexamples to show that certain conjectures are false, mathematical researchers can then avoid going down blind alleys and learn to modify conjectures to produce provable theorems. It is sometimes said that mathematical development consists primarily in finding (and proving) theorems and counterexamples. Rectangle example Suppose that a mathematician is studying geometry and shapes, and she wishes to prove certain theorems about them. She conjectures that "All re ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bayesian Probability
Bayesian probability ( or ) is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief. The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of propositional logic that enables reasoning with hypotheses; that is, with propositions whose truth or falsity is unknown. In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under frequentist inference, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability. Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies a prior probability. This, in turn, is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence). The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence (or anecdata) is evidence based on descriptions and reports of individual, personal experiences, or observations, collected in a non- systematic manner. The term ''anecdotal'' encompasses a variety of forms of evidence. This word refers to personal experiences, self-reported claims, or eyewitness accounts of others, including those from fictional sources, making it a broad category that can lead to confusion due to its varied interpretations. Anecdotal evidence can be true or false but is not usually subjected to the methodology of scholarly method, the scientific method, or the rules of legal, historical, academic, or intellectual rigor, meaning that there are little or no safeguards against fabrication or inaccuracy. However, the use of anecdotal reports in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea may be considered a testimonial, which is highly regulated in certain jurisdictions. The persuasiveness of anecdotal evidence compared to that of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Affirming The Consequent
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the antecedent is true. It takes on the following form: :: If ''P'', then ''Q''. :: ''Q''. :: Therefore, ''P''. which may also be phrased as : P \rightarrow Q (P implies Q) : \therefore Q \rightarrow P (therefore, Q implies P) For example, it may be true that a broken lamp would cause a room to become dark. It is not true, however, that a dark room implies the presence of a broken lamp. There may be no lamp (or any light source). The lamp may also be off. In other words, the consequent (a dark room) can have other antecedents (no lamp, off-lamp), and so can still be true even if the stated antecedent is not. Converse errors are comm ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
