Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The inverse and the converse of a conditional are logically equivalent to each other, just as the conditional and its contrapositive are logically equivalent to each other. [1] But the inverse of a conditional cannot be inferred from the conditional itself (e.g., the conditional might be true while its inverse might be false [2]). For example ...
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the ...
Confusion of the inverse, also called the conditional probability fallacy or the inverse fallacy, is a logical fallacy whereupon a conditional probability is equated with its inverse; that is, given two events A and B, the probability of A happening given that B has happened is assumed to be about the same as the probability of B given A, when there is actually no evidence for this assumption.
The inverse is "If a polygon is not a quadrilateral, then it does not have four sides." In this case, unlike the last example, the inverse of the statement is true. The converse is "If a polygon has four sides, then it is a quadrilateral." Again, in this case, unlike the last example, the converse of the statement is true.
In logic and mathematics, the converse of a categorical or implicational statement is the result of reversing its two constituent statements. For the implication P → Q, the converse is Q → P. For the categorical proposition All S are P, the converse is All P are S. Either way, the truth of the converse is generally independent from that of ...
where p = 0.3275911, a 1 = 0.254829592, a 2 = −0.284496736, a 3 = 1.421413741, a 4 = −1.453152027, a 5 = 1.061405429 All of these approximations are valid for x ≥ 0 . To use these approximations for negative x , use the fact that erf x is an odd function, so erf x = −erf(− x ) .
It is a type of mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes on the following form: [1] 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 ...
The notation convention chosen here (with W 0 and W −1) follows the canonical reference on the Lambert W function by Corless, Gonnet, Hare, Jeffrey and Knuth. [3]The name "product logarithm" can be understood as follows: since the inverse function of f(w) = e w is termed the logarithm, it makes sense to call the inverse "function" of the product we w the "product logarithm".