Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or ...
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2]
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept called mathematical fallacy.There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof, in that a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof while in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies there is some element of concealment or ...
These paradoxes may be due to fallacious reasoning , or an unintuitive solution . The term paradox is often used to describe a counter-intuitive result. However, some of these paradoxes qualify to fit into the mainstream viewpoint of a paradox, which is a self-contradictory result gained even while properly applying accepted ways of reasoning .
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa. [ 68 ] Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
In traditional logic, a particular negative categorical proposition, stating that some members of the subject class are not members of the predicate class. [2] [218] or A logical connective (disjunction) that links propositions in a way that the compound proposition is true if at least one of the linked propositions is true. ordered logic
A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. [1] [2] It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true or apparently true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.
The classic proof that the square root of 2 is irrational is a refutation by contradiction. [11] Indeed, we set out to prove the negation ¬ ∃ a, b ∈ . a/b = √ 2 by assuming that there exist natural numbers a and b whose ratio is the square root of two, and derive a contradiction.