Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the latter case, a (declarative) sentence is just one way of expressing an underlying statement. A statement is what a sentence means, it is the notion or idea that a sentence expresses, i.e., what it represents. For example, it could be said that "2 + 2 = 4" and "two plus two equals four" are two different sentences expressing the same ...
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises. An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid". An example of a valid (and sound) argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
Sentences are then built up out of atomic sentences by applying connectives and quantifiers. A set of sentences is called a theory; thus, individual sentences may be called theorems. To properly evaluate the truth (or falsehood) of a sentence, one must make reference to an interpretation of the theory.
For example, direct proof can be used to prove that the sum of two even integers is always even: Consider two even integers x and y. Since they are even, they can be written as x = 2a and y = 2b, respectively, for some integers a and b. Then the sum is x + y = 2a + 2b = 2(a+b). Therefore x+y has 2 as a factor and, by definition, is even. Hence ...
Each of these systems is sound, which means any sentence they can be used to prove is logically valid in the appropriate semantics. The weakest deductive system that can be used consists of a standard deductive system for first-order logic (such as natural deduction ) augmented with substitution rules for second-order terms.
Logical form replaces any sentences or ideas with letters to remove any bias from content and allow one to evaluate the argument without any bias due to its subject matter. [1] Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true.
The predicate calculus goes a step further than the propositional calculus to an "analysis of the inner structure of propositions" [4] It breaks a simple sentence down into two parts (i) its subject (the object (singular or plural) of discourse) and (ii) a predicate (a verb or possibly verb-clause that asserts a quality or attribute of the object(s)).
The proof of sentence c can be formalized within the system S, and therefore the statement c, "p is not provable", (or identically, "not P(p)") can be proved in the system S. Observe then, that if we can prove that the system S is consistent (ie. the statement in the hypothesis of c), then we have proved that p is not provable.