Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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] It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore, Q ...
Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement and invalidly concluding its converse . The name affirming the consequent derives from using the consequent, Q, of , to conclude the antecedent P.
Modus ponens (also known as "affirming the antecedent" or "the law of detachment") is the primary deductive rule of inference. It applies to arguments that have as first premise a conditional statement ( P → Q {\displaystyle P\rightarrow Q} ) and as second premise the antecedent ( P {\displaystyle P} ) of the conditional statement.
In propositional logic, modus tollens (/ ˈ m oʊ d ə s ˈ t ɒ l ɛ n z /) (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") [2] and denying the consequent, [3] is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference.
The only situation where one may deny the antecedent would be if the antecedent and consequent represent the same proposition, in which case the argument is trivially valid (and it would beg the question) under the logic of modus tollens. A related fallacy is affirming the consequent.
Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B. [10] Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A. [10]
Antecedent and consequent are connected via logical connective to form a proposition. If is a man, then is mortal. " is a man" is the antecedent for this proposition while "is mortal" is the consequent of the proposition. If men have walked on the Moon, then I am the king of France.
Two invalid argument forms are affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Affirming the consequent All dogs are animals. Coco is an animal. Therefore, Coco is a dog. Denying the antecedent All cats are animals. Missy is not a cat. Therefore, Missy is not an animal.