Ad
related to: implication vs conclusion sentence meaning
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]
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]
It understands meaning usually in relation to truth conditions, i.e. it examines in which situations a sentence would be true or false. One of its central methodological assumptions is the principle of compositionality. It states that the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its parts and how they are combined.
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]
material conditional (material implication) implies, if P then Q, it is not the case that P and not Q propositional logic, Boolean algebra, Heyting algebra: is false when A is true and B is false but true otherwise. may mean the same as
Strict conditional or strict implication, a connective of modal logic that expresses necessity; modus ponens, or implication elimination, a simple argument form and rule of inference summarized as "p implies q; p is asserted to be true, so therefore q must be true"
Next to each premise and conclusion is a shorthand description of the sentence. So in AAI-3, the premise "All squares are rectangles" becomes "MaP"; the symbols mean that the first term ("square") is the middle term, the second term ("rectangle") is the predicate of the conclusion, and the relationship between the two terms is labeled "a" (All ...
In this case, the conclusion contradicts the deductive logic of the preceding premises, rather than deriving from it. Therefore, the argument is logically 'invalid', even though the conclusion could be considered 'true' in general terms. The premise 'All men are immortal' would likewise be deemed false outside of the framework of classical logic.