Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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: All cups are green. (False) Socrates is a cup. (False) Therefore, Socrates is green. (False)
Sentences are then built up out of atomic sentences by applying connectives and quantifiers. A set of sentences is called a theory; thus, individual sentences may be called theorems. To properly evaluate the truth (or falsehood) of a sentence, one must make reference to an interpretation of the theory.
Formally the law of non-contradiction is written as ¬(P ∧ ¬P) and read as "it is not the case that a proposition is both true and false". The law of non-contradiction neither follows nor is implied by the principle of Proof by contradiction. The laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction together mean that exactly one of P and ¬P is true.
The liar paradox is the sentence "This sentence is false." An analysis of the liar sentence shows that it cannot be true (for then, as it asserts, it is false), nor can it be false (for then, it is true). A Gödel sentence G for a system F makes a similar assertion to the liar sentence, but with truth replaced by provability: G says "G is not ...
A statement is logically true if, and only if its opposite is logically false. The opposite statements must contradict one another. In this way all logical connectives can be expressed in terms of preserving logical truth. The logical form of a sentence is determined by its semantic or syntactic structure and by the placement of logical constants.
The predicate calculus goes a step further than the propositional calculus to an "analysis of the inner structure of propositions" [4] It breaks a simple sentence down into two parts (i) its subject (the object (singular or plural) of discourse) and (ii) a predicate (a verb or possibly verb-clause that asserts a quality or attribute of the object(s)).
A probabilistic proof is one in which an example is shown to exist, with certainty, by using methods of probability theory. Probabilistic proof, like proof by construction, is one of many ways to prove existence theorems. In the probabilistic method, one seeks an object having a given property, starting with a large set of candidates.
The most thoroughly researched branch of propositional logic is classical truth-functional propositional logic, [1] in which formulas are interpreted as having precisely one of two possible truth values, the truth value of true or the truth value of false. [19] The principle of bivalence and the law of excluded middle are upheld.