Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The framing effect is a cognitive bias in which people decide between options based on whether the options are presented with positive or negative connotations. [1] Individuals have a tendency to make risk-avoidant choices when options are positively framed, while selecting more loss-avoidant options when presented with a negative frame.
Obversion changes the quality (that is the affirmativity or negativity) of the statement and the predicate term. [10] For example, by obversion, a universal affirmative statement become a universal negative statement with the predicate term that is the class complement of the predicate term of the original universal affirmative statement.
In linguistics and grammar, affirmation (abbreviated AFF) and negation (NEG) are ways in which grammar encodes positive and negative polarity into verb phrases, clauses, or utterances. An affirmative (positive) form is used to express the validity or truth of a basic assertion, while a negative form expresses its falsity.
In propositional logic, the double negation of a statement states that "it is not the case that the statement is not true". In classical logic, every statement is logically equivalent to its double negation, but this is not true in intuitionistic logic; this can be expressed by the formula A ≡ ~(~A) where the sign ≡ expresses logical equivalence and the sign ~ expresses negation.
The double-negated existence claim is a logically negative statement and implied by, but generally not equivalent to the existence claim itself. Much of the intricacies of constructive analysis can be framed in terms of the weakness of propositions of the logically negative form ¬ ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg \neg \phi } , which is generally ...
By the completeness theorem of first-order logic, a statement is universally valid if and only if it can be deduced using logical rules and axioms, so the Entscheidungsproblem can also be viewed as asking for an algorithm to decide whether a given statement is provable using the rules of logic.
The book argued, using anecdotes from her own career, that spin does not work in an age of transparency, when everyone will find out the truth anyway ("you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig"). [10] By 2008, the phrase had become common and often controversial political invective in the United Kingdom [11] and the United States.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us