Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
1. The property of a deductive argument where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. [82] 2. Proof-theoretic validity, where a proof follows from the rules of the formal system. [83] (See proof-theoretic semantics.) deductively equivalent Two theories are deductively equivalent if they prove the same theorems. [84] [85] [86]
This is often understood in terms of probability: if the premises of a correct argument are true, it raises the probability that its conclusion is also true. Forms of logical reasoning can be distinguished based on how the premises support the conclusion. Deductive arguments offer the strongest possible support.
Logical equality (also known as biconditional or exclusive nor) is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if both operands are false or both operands are true. The truth table for p XNOR q (also written as p ↔ q, Epq, p = q, or p ≡ q) is as follows:
Logical form replaces any sentences or ideas with letters to remove any bias from content and allow one to evaluate the argument without any bias due to its subject matter. [1] 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.
For valid arguments, the logical structure of the premises and the conclusion follows a pattern called a rule of inference. [12] For example, modus ponens is a rule of inference according to which all arguments of the form "(1) p , (2) if p then q , (3) therefore q " are valid, independent of what the terms p and q stand for. [ 13 ]
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).
The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation), then so is the conclusion. Typically, a rule of inference preserves truth, a semantic property. In many-valued logic, it preserves a general ...
According to the semantic approach, an argument is valid if there is no possible interpretation of the argument whereby its premises are true and its conclusion is false. The syntactic approach, by contrast, focuses on rules of inference, that is, schemas of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises based only on their logical form.