Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It may be the case that several sufficient conditions, when taken together, constitute a single necessary condition (i.e., individually sufficient and jointly necessary), as illustrated in example 5. Example 1 "John is a king" implies that John is male. So knowing that John is a king is sufficient to knowing that he is a male. Example 2
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. [1] [2] [3] [4]The concept applies in a variety of disciplines, [5] with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent.
First-hand observation determines the truth or falsity of a given statement. Naïve Realism is an insufficient criterion of truth. A host of natural phenomena are demonstrably true, but not observable by the unaided sense. For example, Naïve Realism would deny the existence of sounds beyond the range of human hearing and the existence of x ...
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization, which involves reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence [3] —essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables or enough evidence.
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.
[9] [7] Sentences may either be clearly acceptable or clearly unacceptable, but there are also sentences that are partially acceptable. Hence, according to Sprouse, the difference between grammaticality and acceptability is that grammatical knowledge is categorical, but acceptability is a gradient scale.
Argument terminology used in logic. In logic, an argument is a set of related statements expressing the premises (which may consists of non-empirical evidence, empirical evidence or may contain some axiomatic truths) and a necessary conclusion based on the relationship of the premises.
Only evidence of that type is relevant to believing one of these conclusions. Therefore, there is no evidence for believing one among the rival conclusions. The first premise makes the claim that a theory is underdetermined. The second says that rational decision (i.e. using available evidence) depends upon insufficient evidence.