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 ...
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.
The theory here is that the learned behavior is the continuance of drinking, and this is performed to the stimuli that could be losing a job. [12] The antecedent here is a setting event, [10] as it happens due to social variables in order to effect a response. [11]
An antecedent is the first half of a hypothetical proposition, whenever the if-clause precedes the then-clause. In some contexts the antecedent is called the protasis. [1] Examples: If , then . This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q.
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the ...
If the 3 card is blue (or red), that doesn't violate the rule. The rule makes no claims about odd numbers. (Denying the antecedent) If the 8 card is not blue, it violates the rule. (Modus ponens) If the blue card is odd (or even), that doesn't violate the rule. The blue color is not exclusive to even numbers. (Affirming the consequent)
The Vatican on Monday declared gender-affirming surgery and surrogacy as grave violations of human dignity, putting them on par with abortion and euthanasia as practices that reject God’s plan ...
This fallacy is similar to the valid rule of inference known as modus ponens. It is faulty because the first premise and the conclusion are switched around. Other well-known formal fallacies are denying the antecedent, affirming a disjunct, denying a conjunct, and the fallacy of the undistributed middle. [32] [96] [101]