Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A sentence can be viewed as expressing a proposition, something that must be true or false. The restriction of having no free variables is needed to make sure that sentences can have concrete, fixed truth values : as the free variables of a (general) formula can range over several values, the truth value of such a formula may vary.
The Gödel sentence is designed to refer, indirectly, to itself. The sentence states that, when a particular sequence of steps is used to construct another sentence, that constructed sentence will not be provable in F. However, the sequence of steps is such that the constructed sentence turns out to be G F itself.
The definition of a formal proof is intended to capture the concept of proofs as written in the practice of mathematics. The soundness of this definition amounts to the belief that a published proof can, in principle, be converted into a formal proof. However, outside the field of automated proof assistants, this is rarely done in practice.
In logic and deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and has no false premises. [1] Soundness has a related meaning in mathematical logic, wherein a formal system of logic is sound if and only if every well-formed formula that can be proven in the system is logically valid with respect to the logical semantics of the system.
Propositional logic, as currently studied in universities, is a specification of a standard of logical consequence in which only the meanings of propositional connectives are considered in evaluating the conditions for the truth of a sentence, or whether a sentence logically follows from some other sentence or group of sentences.
Semantic completeness is the converse of soundness for formal systems. A formal system is complete with respect to tautologousness or "semantically complete" when all its tautologies are theorems, whereas a formal system is "sound" when all theorems are tautologies (that is, they are semantically valid formulas: formulas that are true under every interpretation of the language of the system ...
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises. An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid". An example of a valid (and sound) argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
Given any number , we seek to prove that there is a prime larger than . Suppose to the contrary that no such p exists (an application of proof by contradiction). Then all primes are smaller than or equal to n {\displaystyle n} , and we may form the list p 1 , … , p k {\displaystyle p_{1},\ldots ,p_{k}} of them all.