Ads
related to: implication vs conclusion sentence generator
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A sentence is said to be a logical consequence of a set of sentences, for a given language, if and only if, using only logic (i.e., without regard to any personal interpretations of the sentences) the sentence must be true if every sentence in the set is true. [3]
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.
A set of rules can be used to infer any valid conclusion if it is complete, while never inferring an invalid conclusion, if it is sound. A sound and complete set of rules need not include every rule in the following list, as many of the rules are redundant, and can be proven with the other rules.
The hearer can now draw the contextual implications that +> Susan needs to be cheered up. +> Peter wants me to ring Susan and cheer her up. If Peter intended the hearer to come to these implications, they are implicated conclusions. Implicated premises and conclusions are the two types of implicatures in the relevance theoretical sense. [51]
In a Hilbert system, the premises and conclusion of the inference rules are simply formulae of some language, usually employing metavariables.For graphical compactness of the presentation and to emphasize the distinction between axioms and rules of inference, this section uses the sequent notation instead of a vertical presentation of rules.
The form of a modus ponens argument is a mixed hypothetical syllogism, with two premises and a conclusion: . If P, then Q.; P.; Therefore, Q. The first premise is a conditional ("if–then") claim, namely that P implies Q.
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 case.
In propositional logic, material implication [1] [2] is a valid rule of replacement that allows a conditional statement to be replaced by a disjunction in which the antecedent is negated. The rule states that P implies Q is logically equivalent to not- P {\displaystyle P} or Q {\displaystyle Q} and that either form can replace the other in ...