Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
These types of inferences are also referred to as "bridging inferences." For example, if a reader came across the following sentences together, they would need to have inferred that the sentences are related to one-another if they are to make any sense of the text as a whole: "Mary poured the water on the bonfire. The fire went out."
Each logic operator can be used in an assertion about variables and operations, showing a basic rule of inference. Examples: The column-14 operator (OR), shows Addition rule : when p =T (the hypothesis selects the first two lines of the table), we see (at column-14) that p ∨ q =T.
Logical reasoning is a form of thinking that is concerned with arriving at a conclusion in a rigorous way. [1] This happens in the form of inferences by transforming the information present in a set of premises to reach a conclusion.
For example, the rule of inference called modus ponens takes two premises, one in the form "If p then q" and another in the form "p", and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics ), in the sense that if the premises are true (under ...
A paradox in deontic logic arising from imperatives that imply counterintuitive obligations, demonstrating challenges in formalizing moral and ethical reasoning. rule of inference A logical rule that justifies the transition from a set of premises to a conclusion, forming the basis of deductive reasoning. rule of replacement
Inferences are steps in logical reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward". Inference is theoretically traditionally divided into deduction and induction , a distinction that in Europe dates at least to Aristotle (300s BCE).
As in this example, argumentation schemes typically recognize a variety of semantic (or substantive) relations that inference rules in classical logic ignore. [2]: 19 More than one argumentation scheme may apply to the same argument; in this example, the more complex abductive argumentation scheme may also apply.
For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work.