Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A variety of basic concepts is used in the study and analysis of logical reasoning. Logical reasoning happens by inferring a conclusion from a set of premises. [3] Premises and conclusions are normally seen as propositions. A proposition is a statement that makes a claim about what is the case.
For the most part this discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic. Abductive reasoning is a form of inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not ...
Computational logic is the branch of logic and computer science that studies how to implement mathematical reasoning and logical formalisms using computers. This includes, for example, automatic theorem provers , which employ rules of inference to construct a proof step by step from a set of premises to the intended conclusion without human ...
A subfield of linear logic focusing on the study of affine transformations and their implications in logical reasoning. affirmative proposition A proposition that asserts the truth of a statement, as opposed to negating it. [7] [8] [9] affirming the consequent A logical fallacy in which a conditional statement is incorrectly used to infer its ...
Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic , dialectic , and rhetoric , argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue , conversation , and persuasion .
A Mastermind player uses abduction to infer the secret colors (top) from summaries (bottom left) of discrepancies in their guesses (bottom right).. Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, [1] abductive inference, [1] or retroduction [2]) is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations.
In this process of reasoning, general assertions are made based on past specific pieces of evidence. This kind of reasoning allows the conclusion to be false even if the original statement is true. [28] For example, if one observes a college athlete, one makes predictions and assumptions about other college athletes based on that one observation.
In this case, the conclusion contradicts the deductive logic of the preceding premises, rather than deriving from it. Therefore, the argument is logically 'invalid', even though the conclusion could be considered 'true' in general terms. The premise 'All men are immortal' would likewise be deemed false outside of the framework of classical logic.