Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This theory of deductive reasoning – also known as term logic – was developed by Aristotle, but was superseded by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate logic. [citation needed] Deductive reasoning can be contrasted with inductive reasoning, in regards to validity and soundness. In cases of inductive reasoning, even though the ...
A form of deductive reasoning in Aristotelian logic consisting of three categorical propositions that involve three terms and deduce a conclusion from two premises. category In mathematics and logic, a collection of objects and morphisms between them that satisfies certain axioms, fundamental to category theory. category theory
In deductive reasoning, a sound argument is an argument that is valid and all of its premises are true (and as a consequence its conclusion is true as well). An argument is valid if, assuming its premises are true, the conclusion must be true. An example of a sound argument is the following well-known syllogism: (premises) All men are mortal.
A simple example, applied to two of the above illustrations, is the following: Let the letters 'P', 'Q', and 'S' stand, respectively, for the set of men, the set of mortals, and Socrates. Using these symbols, the first argument may be abbreviated as:
Deductive system, deductive apparatus, or proof system, which has rules of inference that take axioms and infers theorems, both of which are part of the formal language. A formal system is said to be recursive (i.e. effective) or recursively enumerable if the set of axioms and the set of inference rules are decidable sets or semidecidable sets ...
In propositional logic, modus tollens (/ ˈ m oʊ d ə s ˈ t ɒ l ɛ n z /) (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "mode that by denying denies") [2] and denying the consequent, [3] is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference.
In a Hilbert system, a formal deduction (or proof) is a finite sequence of formulas in which each formula is either an axiom or is obtained from previous formulas by a rule of inference. These formal deductions are meant to mirror natural-language proofs, although they are far more detailed.
For example, If P, then Q. P. ∴ Q. In this example, the first premise is a conditional statement in which "P" is the antecedent and "Q" is the consequent. The second premise "affirms" the antecedent. The conclusion, that the consequent must be true, is deductively valid.