Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Then the converse of S is the statement Q implies P (Q → P). In general, the truth of S says nothing about the truth of its converse, [2] unless the antecedent P and the consequent Q are logically equivalent. For example, consider the true statement "If I am a human, then I am mortal."
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 ...
Deductive reasoning plays a central role in formal logic and mathematics. [1] In mathematics, it is used to prove mathematical theorems based on a set of premises, usually called axioms. For example, Peano arithmetic is based on a small set of axioms from which all essential properties of natural numbers can be inferred using deductive reasoning.
A definition that provides a means for replacing each occurrence of the definiendum with an appropriate instance of the definiens. [131] [132] Contrast implicit definition. explosion The principle in logic that from a contradiction, any statement can be proven, related to the principle of ex falso quodlibet. exportation
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]
Logic is the formal science of using reason and is considered a branch of both philosophy and mathematics and to a lesser extent computer science. Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and the study of arguments in natural language .
In the monoid of binary endorelations on a set (with the binary operation on relations being the composition of relations), the converse relation does not satisfy the definition of an inverse from group theory, that is, if is an arbitrary relation on , then does not equal the identity relation on in general.
The inverse and the converse of a conditional are logically equivalent to each other, just as the conditional and its contrapositive are logically equivalent to each other. [1] But the inverse of a conditional cannot be inferred from the conditional itself (e.g., the conditional might be true while its inverse might be false [2]). For example ...