Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Logical consequence is necessary and formal, by way of examples that explain with formal proof and models of interpretation. [1] A sentence is said to be a logical consequence of a set of sentences, for a given language , if and only if , using only logic (i.e., without regard to any personal interpretations of the sentences) the sentence must ...
In propositional logic, material implication [1] [2] is a valid rule of replacement that allows a conditional statement to be replaced by a disjunction in which the antecedent is negated. The rule states that P implies Q is logically equivalent to not- P {\displaystyle P} or Q {\displaystyle Q} and that either form can replace the other in ...
13, then/if, Converse implication; 14, OR, Logical disjunction; 15, true, Tautology. Each logic operator can be used in an assertion about variables and operations, showing a basic rule of inference. Examples:
An example of a conventional implicature is "Donovan is poor but happy", where the word "but" implicates a sense of contrast between being poor and being happy. [ 7 ] Later linguists introduced refined and different definitions of the term, leading to somewhat different ideas about which parts of the information conveyed by an utterance are ...
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]
Material implication does not closely match the usage of conditional sentences in natural language. For example, even though material conditionals with false antecedents are vacuously true, the natural language statement "If 8 is odd, then 3 is prime" is typically judged false. Similarly, any material conditional with a true consequent is ...
In this example there is no possible situation in which the premises are true while the conclusion is false. Since there is no counterexample, the argument is valid. But one could construct an argument in which the premises are inconsistent.
Every use of modus tollens can be converted to a use of modus ponens and one use of transposition to the premise which is a material implication. For example: If P, then Q. (premise – material implication) If not Q, then not P. (derived by transposition) Not Q. (premise) Therefore, not P. (derived by modus ponens)