Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
For example, because is a tautology of propositional logic, ((=)) ((=)) is a tautology in first order logic. Similarly, in a first-order language with a unary relation symbols R , S , T , the following sentence is a tautology:
In literary criticism and rhetoric, a tautology is a statement that repeats an idea using near-synonymous morphemes, words or phrases, effectively "saying the same thing twice". [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Tautology and pleonasm are not consistently differentiated in literature. [ 3 ]
In propositional logic, tautology is either of two commonly used rules of replacement. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] The rules are used to eliminate redundancy in disjunctions and conjunctions when they occur in logical proofs .
Tautology may refer to: Tautology (language), a redundant statement in literature and rhetoric; Tautology (logic), in formal logic, a statement that is true in every ...
Tautological consequence can also be defined as ∧ ∧ ... ∧ → is a substitution instance of a tautology, with the same effect. [2]It follows from the definition that if a proposition p is a contradiction then p tautologically implies every proposition, because there is no truth valuation that causes p to be true and so the definition of tautological implication is trivially satisfied.
Sometimes used for “relation”, also used for denoting various ad hoc relations (for example, for denoting “witnessing” in the context of Rosser's trick). The fish hook is also used as strict implication by C.I.Lewis p {\displaystyle p} ⥽ q ≡ ( p → q ) {\displaystyle q\equiv \Box (p\rightarrow q)} .
However, the term tautology is also commonly used to refer to what could more specifically be called truth-functional tautologies. Whereas a tautology or logical truth is true solely because of the logical terms it contains in general (e.g. " every ", " some ", and "is"), a truth-functional tautology is true because of the logical terms it ...
A less trivial example of a redundancy is the classical equivalence between and . Therefore, a classical-based logical system does not need the conditional operator " → {\displaystyle \to } " if " ¬ {\displaystyle \neg } " (not) and " ∨ {\displaystyle \vee } " (or) are already in use, or may use the " → {\displaystyle \to } " only as a ...