Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The assertion that Q is necessary for P is colloquially equivalent to "P cannot be true unless Q is true" or "if Q is false, then P is false". [9] [1] By contraposition, this is the same thing as "whenever P is true, so is Q". The logical relation between P and Q is expressed as "if P, then Q" and denoted "P ⇒ Q" (P implies Q). It may also be ...
The form of a modus tollens argument is a mixed hypothetical syllogism, with two premises and a conclusion: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. The first premise is a conditional ("if-then") claim, such as P implies Q. The second premise is an assertion that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, is not the
In propositional logic, modus ponens (/ ˈ m oʊ d ə s ˈ p oʊ n ɛ n z /; MP), also known as modus ponendo ponens (from Latin 'mode that by affirming affirms'), [1] implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent, [2] is a deductive argument form and rule of inference. [3] It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore, Q ...
The material conditional (also known as material implication) is an operation commonly used in logic.When the conditional symbol is interpreted as material implication, a formula is true unless is true and is false.
It is also called propositional logic, [2] statement logic, [1] sentential calculus, [3] sentential logic, [4] [1] or sometimes zeroth-order logic. [ b ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Sometimes, it is called first-order propositional logic [ 9 ] to contrast it with System F , but it should not be confused with first-order logic .
The predicate calculus goes a step further than the propositional calculus to an "analysis of the inner structure of propositions" [4] It breaks a simple sentence down into two parts (i) its subject (the object (singular or plural) of discourse) and (ii) a predicate (a verb or possibly verb-clause that asserts a quality or attribute of the object(s)).
An example for a renaming substitution is { x ↦ x 1, x 1 ↦ y, y ↦ y 2, y 2 ↦ x}, it has the inverse { x ↦ y 2, y 2 ↦ y, y ↦ x 1, x 1 ↦ x}. The flat substitution { x ↦ z , y ↦ z } cannot have an inverse, since e.g. ( x + y ) { x ↦ z , y ↦ z } = z + z , and the latter term cannot be transformed back to x + y , as the ...
That it is true appears as follows. It can only be false by the final consequent x being false while its antecedent (x ⤙ y) ⤙ x is true. If this is true, either its consequent, x, is true, when the whole formula would be true, or its antecedent x ⤙ y is false. But in the last case the antecedent of x ⤙ y, that is x, must be true.