Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Polish logician Alfred Tarski identified three features of an adequate characterization of entailment: (1) The logical consequence relation relies on the logical form of the sentences: (2) The relation is a priori, i.e., it can be determined with or without regard to empirical evidence (sense experience); and (3) The logical consequence ...
In the TE framework, the entailing and entailed texts are termed text (t) and hypothesis (h), respectively.Textual entailment is not the same as pure logical entailment – it has a more relaxed definition: "t entails h" (t ⇒ h) if, typically, a human reading t would infer that h is most likely true. [1]
Under this interpretation, both premises are true, but both clauses of the conclusion are false. The second example can be read "If both switch A and switch B are closed, then the light is on. Therefore, it is either true that if switch A is closed, the light is on, or that if switch B is closed, the light is on."
Linguistic entailments are entailments which arise in natural language.If a sentence A entails a sentence B, sentence A cannot be true without B being true as well. [1] For instance, the English sentence "Pat is a fluffy cat" entails the sentence "Pat is a cat" since one cannot be a fluffy cat without being a cat.
Strawson entailment has played an important role in semantic theory since some natural language expressions have been argued to be sensitive to Strawson-entailment rather than pure entailment. For instance, the textbook theory of weak negative polarity items holds that they are licensed only in Strawson- downward entailing environments.
Deductive reasoning is the psychological process of drawing deductive inferences.An inference is a set of premises together with a conclusion. This psychological process starts from the premises and reasons to a conclusion based on and supported by these premises.
Furthermore, as in Grice's theory, there is often no explanation for when which of the two principles is used, i.e. why "I lost a book yesterday" has the Q-implicature, or scalar implicature, that the book was the speaker's, while "I slept on a boat yesterday" R-implicates that the boat wasn't the speaker's. [33] Stephen Levinson
Intermediate conclusions or sub-conclusions, where a claim is supported by another claim that is used in turn to support some further claim, i.e. the final conclusion or another intermediate conclusion: In the following diagram, statement 4 is an intermediate conclusion in that it is a conclusion in relation to statement 5 but is a premise in ...