0
What else can I help you with?
What is the law of modus tollens?
It in Math, (Geometry) If p implies q is a true conditional statement and not q is true, then not p is true.
What is the proof of the modus ponens not by the truth table?
1)p->q 2)not p or q 3)p 4)not p and p or q 5)contrudiction or q 6)q
What is the demand elasticity of P 100-4Q when Q 20?
The quantity, Q, demanded at price P is 100 - 4Q So Q = 25 - P/4 And therefore, the demand elasticity is -1/4 or -0.25, whatever the value of Q.
What is the sum or difference of p and q?
The sum of p and q means (p+q). The difference of p and q means (p-q).
What is p lots of q?
p*q
What is the law of modus tollens?
It in Math, (Geometry) If p implies q is a true conditional statement and not q is true, then not p is true.
What does mto stand for in txt language?
"mto" stands for "modus tollens", which is a valid form of argument used in logic. It is often represented as "If P then Q, Not Q, Therefore Not P."
What does the truth table for Modus Tollens look like?
p > q~qTherefore, ~p| p | q | p > q | ~q | ~p || t | t | t | f | f || t | f | t | t | f || f | t | t | f | t || f | f | t | t | t |
What is modus ponens?
Modus Ponens is very simple. lets say you have this example If today is Monday, then tomorrow is Tuesday. Today is Monday Therefore tomorrow is Tuesday. That is a valid argument because of modus ponens If the premise(if today is monday) is true then you must accept the conclusion(Then Tommorow is Tuesday) as true also. Another example If P, then Q P Therefore Q
What is the proof of the modus ponens not by the truth table?
1)p->q 2)not p or q 3)p 4)not p and p or q 5)contrudiction or q 6)q
Is modus ponens deductive logic?
Yes, modus ponens is a valid form of deductive reasoning in logic. It involves deriving a conclusion from two premises: if p then q (p → q) and p are true, then q must also be true.
Madeline must have known the material for the test because if a person knows the material that person will get an A and Madeline was one of the students that got an A?
this is a valid argument, affirming the antecedent, or a modus ponens. The structure is: If a person knows the material for the test, he/whe will get an A. (If P, then Q.) Madeline knew the material for the test, therefore she got an A. (P, therefore Q.)
Law of detachment?
Law of Detachment also known as Modus Ponens (MP) says that if p=>q is true and p is true, then q must be true. The Law of Syllogism is also called the Law of Transitivity and states: if p=>q and q=>r are both true, then p=>r is true.
What is the law f detachment?
Law of Detachment states if p→q is true and p is true, then q must be true. p→q p therefore, q Ex: If Charlie is a sophomore (p), then he takes Geometry(q). Charlie is a sophomore (p). Conclusion: Charlie takes Geometry(q).
What is the Law of detachment?
AnswerLaw of Detachment ( also known as Modus Ponens (MP) ) says that if p=>q is true and p is true, then q must be true.example:If an angle is obtuse, then it cannot be acute.Angle A is obtuse.ThereforeAngle A cannot be acute.The Law of Syllogism ( also called the Law of Transitivity ) states:if p=>q and q=>r are both true, then p=>r is true.example:If the electric power is cut, then the refrigerator does not work.If the refrigerator does not work, then the food is spoiled.So if the electric power is cut, then the food is spoiled.Law of Detachment also known as Modus Ponens (MP) says that if p=>q is true and p is true, then q must be true.The Law of Syllogism is also called the Law of Transitivity and states: if p=>q and q=>r are both true, then p=>r is true.In a nutshell, it's saying that if you have a conditional, and you have the antecedent, you then have the consequent. For example, we know that, "If it snows this winter, we will need to wear warm winter clothing outside." Suddenly it's mid-December and the forecast is snow. Therefore, it's probably the time to go shopping for winter clothes, if we don't already have any.
How does every rational number have an additive inverse?
By definition, every rational number x can be expressed as a ratio p/q where p and q are integers and q is not zero. Consider -p/q. Then by the properties of integers, -p is an integer and is the additive inverse of p. Therefore p + (-p) = 0Then p/q + (-p/q) = [p + (-p)] /q = 0/q.Also, -p/q is a ratio of two integers, with q non-zero and so -p/q is also a rational number. That is, -p/q is the additive inverse of x, expressed as a ratio.
What are the inference rules for functional dependency?
"The present list of 19 rules of inference constitutes a COMPLETE system of truth-functional logic, in the sense that it permits the construction of a formal proof of validity for ANY valid truth-functional argument." (FN1)The first nine rules of the list are rules of inference that "correspond to elementary argument forms whose validity is easily established by truth tables." (Id, page 351). The remaining ten rules are the Rules of Replacement, "which permits us to infer from any statement the result of replacing any component of that statement by any other statement logically equivalent to the component replaced." (Id, page 359).Here are the 19 Rules of Inference:1. Modus Ponens (M.P.)p qpq 2.Modus Tollens (M.T.)p q~q~p 3.Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.)p qq rp r 4.Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.)p v q~ pq 5. Constructive Dilemma (C.D.)(p q) . (r s)p v rq v s 6. Absorption (Abs.)p qp (p. q)7. Simplification (Simp.)p . qp 8. Conjunction (Conj.)pqp . q 9. Addition (Add.)pp v qAny of the following logically equivalent expressions can replace each other wherever they occur:10.De Morgan's Theorem (De M.) ~(p . q) (~p v ~q)~(p v q) (~p . ~q) 11. Commutation (Com.)(p v q) (q v p)(p . q) (q . p) 12. Association (Assoc.)[p v (q v r)] [(p v q) v r][p . (q . r)] [(p . q) . r] 13.Distribution (Dist) [p . (q v r)] [(p . q) v (p . r)][p v (q . r)] [(p v q) . (p v r)] 14.Double Negation (D.N.)p ~ ~p 15. Transposition (Trans.)(p q) (~q ~p) 16. Material Implication (M. Imp.)(p q) (~p v q) 17. Material Equivalence (M. Equiv.)(p q) [(p q) . (q p)](p q) [(p . q) v (~p . ~q)] 18. Exportation (Exp.)[(p . q) r] [p (q r)] 19. Tautology (Taut.) p (p v p)p (p . p)FN1: Introduction to Logic, Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Prentice Hall, Eleventh Edition, 2001, page 361. The book contains the following footnote after this paragraph: "A method of proving this kind of completeness for a set of rules of inference can be found in I. M. Copi, Symbolic Logic, 5th Edition. (New York: Macmillian, 1979), chap 8, See also John A. Winnie, "The Completeness of Copi's System of Natural Deduction," Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 11 (July 1970), 379-382."
