Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The validity of an inference depends on the form of the inference. That is, the word "valid" does not refer to the truth of the premises or the conclusion, but rather to the form of the inference. An inference can be valid even if the parts are false, and can be invalid even if some parts are true.
Rules of inference are syntactical transform rules which one can use to infer a conclusion from a premise to create an argument. A set of rules can be used to infer any valid conclusion if it is complete, while never inferring an invalid conclusion, if it is sound.
For example, modus ponens is a rule of inference according to which all arguments of the form "(1) p, (2) if p then q, (3) therefore q" are valid, independent of what the terms p and q stand for. [13] In this sense, formal logic can be defined as the science of valid inferences. An alternative definition sees logic as the study of logical ...
Deductively valid arguments follow a rule of inference. [38] A rule of inference is a scheme of drawing conclusions that depends only on the logical form of the premises and the conclusion but not on their specific content. [39] [40] The most-discussed rule of inference is the modus ponens. It has the following form: p; if p then q; therefore 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 ...
Rules of inference govern the transition from the premises to the conclusion. On this view, an inference is valid if it is in accordance with an appropriate rule of inference. [5] Closely related to the notion of valid inference is that of confirmation. [8] Valid inferences belong to formal logic and is associated with deductively valid arguments.
Notice some of the terms repeat: men is a variation man in premises one and two, Socrates and the term mortal repeats in the conclusion. The argument would be just as valid if both premises and conclusion were false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:
In propositional logic, material implication [1] [2] is a valid rule of replacement that allows a conditional statement to be replaced by a disjunction in which the antecedent is negated. The rule states that P implies Q is logically equivalent to not- P {\displaystyle P} or Q {\displaystyle Q} and that either form can replace the other in ...