Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
A condition subsequent is a philosophical and legal term referring to a defined event which terminates a proposition or a contractual obligation. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] In contrast to a condition precedent , a condition subsequent brings the event (or obligation) to an end, rather than being necessary for to the event or obligation to occur.
In the extreme case where the list of antecedent formulas of a sequent is empty, the consequent is unconditional. This differs from the simple unconditional assertion because the number of consequents is arbitrary, not necessarily a single consequent. Thus for example, ' ⊢ B 1, B 2 ' means that either B 1, or B 2, or both must be
A consequent is the second half of a hypothetical proposition. In the standard form of such a proposition, it is the part that follows "then". In an implication, if P implies Q, then P is called the antecedent and Q is called the consequent. [1] In some contexts, the consequent is called the apodosis. [2] Examples:
A mixed hypothetical syllogism has two premises: one conditional statement and one statement that either affirms or denies the antecedent or consequent of that conditional statement. For example, If P, then Q. P. ∴ Q. In this example, the first premise is a conditional statement in which "P" is the antecedent and "Q" is the consequent.
" is a man" is the antecedent for this proposition while "is mortal" is the consequent of the proposition. If men have walked on the Moon, then I am the king of France. Here, "men have walked on the Moon" is the antecedent and "I am the king of France" is the consequent. Let = +.
Logical consequence is necessary and formal, by way of examples that explain with formal proof and models of interpretation. [1] A sentence is said to be a logical consequence of a set of sentences, for a given language , if and only if , using only logic (i.e., without regard to any personal interpretations of the sentences) the sentence must ...
Going from a statement to its converse is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if the statement S and its converse are equivalent (i.e., P is true if and only if Q is also true), then affirming the consequent will be valid. Converse implication is logically equivalent to the disjunction of and