LPL 2.2 lecture

LPL 2.2 lecture - Informal proofs with identity All of the arguments we will deal with will either be valid or invalid Accordingly we need to

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Informal proofs with identity All of the arguments we will deal with will either be valid or invalid. Accordingly, we need to develop methods of demonstrating logical consequence (the fact that a given conclusion follows necessarily from a given set of premises) and logical nonconsequence (the fact that a given conclusion does not follow necessarily from a given set of premises). Remember, if the conclusion of an argument does follow necessarily from its premises, then the argument is valid; if the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises, then the argument is invalid. While demonstrating that an argument is invalid requires finding a circumstance in which the premises are true and the conclusion false (i.e., a counterexample ), how might we demonstrate that an argument is valid? Proofs In formal logic, a proof is a step-by-step demonstration that a given conclusion does indeed follow necessarily from a given set of premises. Proofs allow us to use intermediate steps that establish connections among the premises that will be helpful in
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/10/2011 for the course PHIL 110 taught by Professor ? during the Spring '06 term at South Carolina.

Page1 / 3

LPL 2.2 lecture - Informal proofs with identity All of the arguments we will deal with will either be valid or invalid Accordingly we need to

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online