|
Universal Generalization
In predicate logic, generalization (also universal generalization, universal introduction,Moore and Parker GEN, UG) is a valid inference rule. It states that if \vdash \!P(x) has been derived, then \vdash \!\forall x \, P(x) can be derived. Generalization with hypotheses The full generalization rule allows for hypotheses to the left of the turnstile, but with restrictions. Assume \Gamma is a set of formulas, \varphi a formula, and \Gamma \vdash \varphi(y) has been derived. The generalization rule states that \Gamma \vdash \forall x \, \varphi(x) can be derived if y is not mentioned in \Gamma and x does not occur in \varphi. These restrictions are necessary for soundness. Without the first restriction, one could conclude \forall x P(x) from the hypothesis P(y). Without the second restriction, one could make the following deduction: #\exists z \, \exists w \, ( z \not = w) (Hypothesis) #\exists w \, (y \not = w) (Existential instantiation) #y \not = x (Existential instantiat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
 |
Rule Of Inference
Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, serving as norms of the Logical form, logical structure of Validity (logic), valid arguments. If an argument with true premises follows a rule of inference then the conclusion cannot be false. ''Modus ponens'', an influential rule of inference, connects two premises of the form "if P then Q" and "P" to the conclusion "Q", as in the argument "If it rains, then the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet." There are many other rules of inference for different patterns of valid arguments, such as ''modus tollens'', disjunctive syllogism, constructive dilemma, and existential generalization. Rules of inference include rules of implication, which operate only in one direction from premises to conclusions, and rules of replacement, which state that two expressions are equivalent and can be freely swapped. Rules of inference contrast with formal fallaciesinvalid argu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
 |
Predicate Logic
First-order logic, also called predicate logic, predicate calculus, or quantificational logic, is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables. Rather than propositions such as "all humans are mortal", in first-order logic one can have expressions in the form "for all ''x'', if ''x'' is a human, then ''x'' is mortal", where "for all ''x"'' is a quantifier, ''x'' is a variable, and "... ''is a human''" and "... ''is mortal''" are predicates. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic. A theory about a topic, such as set theory, a theory for groups,A. Tarski, ''Undecidable Theories'' (1953), p. 77. Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics, North-Holland or a formal theory ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
Validity (logic)
In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be truth, true and the conclusion nevertheless to be False (logic), false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formula, well-formed formulas (also called ''wffs'' or simply ''formulas''). The validity of an argument can be tested, proved or disproved, and depends on its logical form. Arguments In logic, an argument is a set of related statements expressing the ''premises'' (which may consists of non-empirical evidence, empirical evidence or may contain some axiomatic truths) and a ''necessary conclusion based on the relationship of the premises.'' An argument is ''valid'' if and only if it would be contradicto ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
 |
Rule Of Inference
Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, serving as norms of the Logical form, logical structure of Validity (logic), valid arguments. If an argument with true premises follows a rule of inference then the conclusion cannot be false. ''Modus ponens'', an influential rule of inference, connects two premises of the form "if P then Q" and "P" to the conclusion "Q", as in the argument "If it rains, then the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet." There are many other rules of inference for different patterns of valid arguments, such as ''modus tollens'', disjunctive syllogism, constructive dilemma, and existential generalization. Rules of inference include rules of implication, which operate only in one direction from premises to conclusions, and rules of replacement, which state that two expressions are equivalent and can be freely swapped. Rules of inference contrast with formal fallaciesinvalid argu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
Turnstile (symbol)
In mathematical logic and computer science the symbol ⊢ (\vdash) has taken the name turnstile because of its resemblance to a typical turnstile. It is also referred to as tee and is often read as "yields", "proves", "satisfies" or "entails". Interpretations The turnstile represents a binary relation. It has several different interpretations in different contexts: * In epistemology, Per Martin-Löf (1996) analyzes the \vdash symbol thus: "... e combination of Frege's , judgement stroke and , content stroke �� came to be called the assertion sign." Frege's notation for a judgement of some content ::\vdash A :can then be read ::''I know is true''. :In the same vein, a conditional assertion ::P \vdash Q :can be read as: ::''From , I know that '' * In metalogic, the study of formal languages; the turnstile represents syntactic consequence (or "derivability"). This is to say, that it shows that one string can be derived from another in a single step, according to t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
|
Universal Instantiation
In predicate logic, universal instantiation (UI; also called universal specification or universal elimination, and sometimes confused with '' dictum de omni'') is a valid rule of inference from a truth about each member of a class of individuals to the truth about a particular individual of that class. It is generally given as a quantification rule for the universal quantifier but it can also be encoded in an axiom schema. It is one of the basic principles used in quantification theory. Example: "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal." Formally, the rule as an axiom schema is given as : \forall x \, A \Rightarrow A\, for every formula ''A'' and every term ''t'', where A\ is the result of substituting ''t'' for each ''free'' occurrence of ''x'' in ''A''. \, A\ is an instance of \forall x \, A. And as a rule of inference it is :from \vdash \forall x A infer \vdash A \ . Irving Copi noted that universal instantiation "... follows from variants of ru ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
|
Modus Ponens
In propositional logic, (; MP), also known as (), implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent, is a deductive argument form and rule of inference. It can be summarized as "''P'' implies ''Q.'' ''P'' is true. Therefore, ''Q'' must also be true." ''Modus ponens'' is a mixed hypothetical syllogism and is closely related to another valid form of argument, '' modus tollens''. Both have apparently similar but invalid forms: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Constructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of ''modus ponens''. The history of ''modus ponens'' goes back to antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument form ''modus ponens'' was Theophrastus. It, along with '' modus tollens'', is one of the standard patterns of inference that can be applied to derive chains of conclusions that lead to the desired goal. Explanation The form of a ''modus ponens'' argument is a mixed hypothetical syllogism, with two premises and a con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
|
Deduction Theorem
In mathematical logic, a deduction theorem is a metatheorem that justifies doing conditional proofs from a hypothesis in systems that do not explicitly axiomatize that hypothesis, i.e. to prove an implication A \to B, it is sufficient to assume A as a hypothesis and then proceed to derive B. Deduction theorems exist for both propositional logic and first-order logic. The deduction theorem is an important tool in Hilbert-style deduction systems because it permits one to write more comprehensible and usually much shorter proofs than would be possible without it. In certain other formal proof systems the same conveniency is provided by an explicit inference rule; for example natural deduction calls it implication introduction. In more detail, the propositional logic deduction theorem states that if a formula B is deducible from a set of assumptions \Delta \cup \ then the implication A \to B is deducible from \Delta ; in symbols, \Delta \cup \ \vdash B implies \Delta \vdash A \ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
|
First-order Logic
First-order logic, also called predicate logic, predicate calculus, or quantificational logic, is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables. Rather than propositions such as "all humans are mortal", in first-order logic one can have expressions in the form "for all ''x'', if ''x'' is a human, then ''x'' is mortal", where "for all ''x"'' is a quantifier, ''x'' is a variable, and "... ''is a human''" and "... ''is mortal''" are predicates. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic. A theory about a topic, such as set theory, a theory for groups,A. Tarski, ''Undecidable Theories'' (1953), p. 77. Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics, North-Holland or a formal theory o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
|
|
Hasty Generalization
A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people: * If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude. * If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white. Expressed in more precise philosophical language, a fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises, or one which is not justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions, yet only weakly buttress the conclusions, hence a faulty generalization is pr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |