Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Logical consequence (also entailment or implication) is a fundamental concept in logic which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements.
In natural language, an instance of the paradox of entailment arises: It is raining. And It is not raining. Therefore George Washington is made of rakes. This arises from the principle of explosion, a law of classical logic stating that inconsistent premises always make an argument valid; that is, inconsistent premises imply any conclusion at all.
A non-monotonic logic is a formal logic whose entailment relation is not monotonic.In other words, non-monotonic logics are devised to capture and represent defeasible inferences, i.e., a kind of inference in which reasoners draw tentative conclusions, enabling reasoners to retract their conclusion(s) based on further evidence. [1]
An argument is defined as a pair of things, namely a set of sentences, called the premises, [g] and a sentence, called the conclusion. [ 38 ] [ 34 ] [ 37 ] The conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises, [ 37 ] and the premises are claimed to support the conclusion.
Paradox of entailment: Inconsistent premises always make an argument valid. Lottery paradox : If there is one winning ticket in a large lottery, it is reasonable to believe of any particular lottery ticket that it is not the winning ticket, but it is not reasonable to believe that no lottery ticket will win.
Relevance logic, also called relevant logic, is a kind of non-classical logic requiring the antecedent and consequent of implications to be relevantly related. They may be viewed as a family of substructural or modal logics.
Deductive reasoning is the psychological process of drawing deductive inferences.An inference is a set of premises together with a conclusion. This psychological process starts from the premises and reasons to a conclusion based on and supported by these premises.
Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." This can be weakened by adding a premise: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Cows produce milk. Therefore Socrates is mortal." By the property of monotonicity, the argument remains valid with the additional premise, even though the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion.