Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 case. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is also not the case. For ...
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).
In the proposition "If P, then Q", the occurrence of P is sufficient reason for the occurrence of Q. P, as an individual or a class, materially implicates Q, but the relation of Q to P is such that the converse proposition "If Q, then P" does not necessarily have sufficient condition. The rule of inference for sufficient condition is modus ...
If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q. which may also be phrased as (P implies Q) (therefore, not-P implies not-Q) [1] Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.
In most logical systems, one proves a statement of the form "P iff Q" by proving either "if P, then Q" and "if Q, then P", or "if P, then Q" and "if not-P, then not-Q". Proving these pairs of statements sometimes leads to a more natural proof, since there are not obvious conditions in which one would infer a biconditional directly.
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 ...
Equivalently, if P is true or Q is true and P is false, then Q is true. 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 states that P implies Q is logically equivalent to not-or and that either form can replace the other in logical proofs. In other words, if P {\displaystyle P} is true, then Q {\displaystyle Q} must also be true, while if Q {\displaystyle Q} is not true, then P {\displaystyle P} cannot be true either; additionally, when P {\displaystyle ...