Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In first-order logic, resolution condenses the traditional syllogisms of logical inference down to a single rule. To understand how resolution works, consider the following example syllogism of term logic: All Greeks are Europeans. Homer is a Greek. Therefore, Homer is a European. Or, more generally: .
A statement can be called valid, i.e. logical truth, in some systems of logic like in Modal logic if the statement is true in all interpretations. In Aristotelian logic statements are not valid per se. Validity refers to entire arguments. The same is true in propositional logic (statements can be true or false but not called valid or invalid).
In predicate logic, generalization (also universal generalization, universal introduction, [1] [2] [3] GEN, UG) is a valid inference rule. It states that if ⊢ P ( x ) {\displaystyle \vdash \!P(x)} has been derived, then ⊢ ∀ x P ( x ) {\displaystyle \vdash \!\forall x\,P(x)} can be derived.
Absorption is a valid argument form and rule of inference of propositional logic. [1] [2] The rule states that if implies , then implies and .The rule makes it possible to introduce conjunctions to proofs.
Each logic operator can be used in an assertion about variables and operations, showing a basic rule of inference. Examples: The column-14 operator (OR), shows Addition rule: when p=T (the hypothesis selects the first two lines of the table), we see (at column-14) that p∨q=T.
Constructive dilemma [1] [2] [3] is a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if P implies Q and R implies S and either P or R is true, then either Q or S has to be true. In sum, if two conditionals are true and at least one of their antecedents is, then at least one of their consequents must be too.
In predicate logic, existential generalization [1] [2] (also known as existential introduction, ∃I) is a valid rule of inference that allows one to move from a specific statement, or one instance, to a quantified generalized statement, or existential proposition.
Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. This can be proven for any valid argument form using a truth table which shows that there is no situation in which there are all true premises and a false conclusion. [2]