Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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:
Thus in intuitionistic logic proof by contradiction is not universally valid, but can only be applied to the ¬¬-stable propositions. An instance of such a proposition is a decidable one, i.e., satisfying . Indeed, the above proof that the law of excluded middle implies proof by contradiction can be repurposed to show that a decidable ...
Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. This can be proven for any valid argument form using a truth table which shows that there is no situation in which there are all true premises and a false conclusion. [2]
Due to their logical equivalence, stating one effectively states the other; when one is true, the other is also true, and when one is false, the other is also false. Strictly speaking, a contraposition can only exist in two simple conditionals. However, a contraposition may also exist in two complex, universal conditionals, if they are similar.
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.
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.
Traditionally, a proof is a platform which convinces someone beyond reasonable doubt that a statement is mathematically true. Naturally, one would assume that the best way to prove the truth of something like this (B) would be to draw up a comparison with something old (A) that has already been proven as true. Thus was created the concept of ...
In instances of modus tollens we assume as premises that p → q is true and q is false. There is only one line of the truth table—the fourth line—which satisfies these two conditions. In this line, p is false. Therefore, in every instance in which p → q is true and q is false, p must also be false.