Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
A conjunctive grammar is defined by the 4-tuple = (,,,) where V is a finite set; each element v ∈ V {\displaystyle v\in V} is called a nonterminal symbol or a variable . Each variable represents a different type of phrase or clause in the sentence.
In linguistics, a disjunct is a type of adverbial adjunct that expresses information that is not considered essential to the sentence it appears in, but which is considered to be the speaker's or writer's attitude towards, or descriptive statement of, the propositional content of the sentence, "expressing, for example, the speaker's degree of truthfulness or his manner of speaking."
The name "disjunctive syllogism" derives from its being a syllogism, a three-step argument, and the use of a logical disjunction (any "or" statement.) For example, "P or Q" is a disjunction, where P and Q are called the statement's disjuncts. The rule makes it possible to eliminate a disjunction from a logical proof. It is the rule that
Disjunction in natural languages does not precisely match the interpretation of in classical logic. Notably, classical disjunction is inclusive while natural language disjunction is often understood exclusively, as the following English example typically would be. [1] Mary is eating an apple or a pear.
In formal semantics, a Hurford disjunction is a disjunction in which one of the disjuncts entails the other. The concept was first identified by British linguist James Hurford. [1] The sentence "Mary is in the Netherlands or she is in Amsterdam" is an example of a Hurford disjunction since one cannot be in Amsterdam without being in the ...
De Morgan's laws represented with Venn diagrams.In each case, the resultant set is the set of all points in any shade of blue. In propositional logic and Boolean algebra, De Morgan's laws, [1] [2] [3] also known as De Morgan's theorem, [4] are a pair of transformation rules that are both valid rules of inference.
The reasoning is simple: since at least one of the statements P and R is true, and since either of them would be sufficient to entail Q, Q is certainly true. An example in English: If I'm inside, I have my wallet on me. If I'm outside, I have my wallet on me. It is true that either I'm inside or I'm outside. Therefore, I have my wallet on me.