Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Aristotle's term logic there are two logical qualities: affirmation (kataphasis) and denial (apophasis). The logical quality of a proposition is whether it is affirmative (the predicate is affirmed of the subject) or negative (the predicate is denied of the subject). Thus "every man is a mortal" is affirmative, since "mortal" is affirmed of ...
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.
The affirmative, in an English example such as "the police chief here is a woman", declares a simple fact, in this case, it is a fact regarding the police chief and asserts that she is a woman. [5] In contrast, the negative, in an English example such as "the police chief here is not a man", is stated as an assumption for people to believe. [5]
The term false discovery rate (FDR) was used by Colquhoun (2014) [4] to mean the probability that a "significant" result was a false positive. Later Colquhoun (2017) [2] used the term false positive risk (FPR) for the same quantity, to avoid confusion with the term FDR as used by people who work on multiple comparisons.
Subalternation is a relation between the particular statement and the universal statement of the same quality (affirmative or negative) such that the particular is implied by the universal, while superalternation is a relation between them such that the falsity of the universal (equivalently the negation of the universal) is implied by the ...
By use of the adjacency of "1"s in the Karnaugh map (indicated by the grey ovals around terms 0 and 1 and around terms 2 and 6) one can "reduce" the example's Boolean equation i.e. (x'y'z' + x'y'z) + (x'yz' + xyz') to just two terms: x'y' + yz'. But the means for deducing the notion that "No X is Z", and just how the reduction relates to this ...
Example 1. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: If someone lives in San Diego, then they live in California. Joe lives in California. Therefore, Joe lives in San Diego. There are many places to live in California other than San Diego.
a: All A is B. (affirmative) e: No A is B. (negative) i: Some A is B. (affirmative) o: Some A is not B. (negative) The rule states that a syllogism in which both premises are of form a or i (affirmative) cannot reach a conclusion of form e or o (negative). Exactly one of the premises must be negative to construct a valid syllogism with a ...