Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Modus ponens (also known as "affirming the antecedent" or "the law of detachment") is the primary deductive rule of inference. It applies to arguments that have as first premise a conditional statement ( P → Q {\displaystyle P\rightarrow Q} ) and as second premise the antecedent ( P {\displaystyle P} ) of the conditional statement.
What links here; Related changes; Upload file; Special pages; Permanent link; Page information; Cite this page; Get shortened URL; Download QR code
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.
The lotus symbolizes non-attachment in some religions in Asia owing to its ability to grow in muddy waters yet produce an immaculate flower.. Nonattachment, non-attachment, or detachment is a state in which a person overcomes their emotional attachment to or desire for things, people, or worldly concerns and thus attains a heightened perspective.
In propositional logic, modus ponens (/ ˈ m oʊ d ə s ˈ p oʊ n ɛ n z /; MP), also known as modus ponendo ponens (from Latin 'mode that by affirming affirms'), [1] implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent, [2] is a deductive argument form and rule of inference. [3]
Condensed detachment (Rule D) is a method of finding the most general possible conclusion given two formal logical statements. It was developed by the Irish logician Carew Meredith in the 1950s and inspired by the work of Łukasiewicz .
Wigmore evidence chart, from 1905. A Wigmore chart (commonly referred to as Wigmorean analysis) is a graphical method for the analysis of legal evidence in trials, developed by John Henry Wigmore. [1] [2] It is an early form of the modern belief network. [3] After completing his Treatise in 1904, Wigmore "became convinced that something was ...
Then we have by the law of excluded middle [clarification needed] (i.e. either must be true, or must not be true). Subsequently, since P → Q {\displaystyle P\to Q} , P {\displaystyle P} can be replaced by Q {\displaystyle Q} in the statement, and thus it follows that ¬ P ∨ Q {\displaystyle \neg P\lor Q} (i.e. either Q {\displaystyle Q ...