Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Modus ponens
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Status == While ''modus ponens'' is one of the most commonly used [[argument form]]s in logic, it must not be mistaken for a logical law; rather, it is one of the accepted mechanisms for the construction of deductive proofs that includes the "rule of definition" and the "rule of substitution".<ref>Alfred Tarski 1946:47. Also Enderton 2001:110ff.</ref> ''Modus ponens'' allows one to eliminate a [[material conditional|conditional statement]] from a [[formal proof|logical proof or argument]] (the antecedents) and thereby not carry these antecedents forward in an ever-lengthening string of symbols; for this reason modus ponens is sometimes called the '''rule of detachment'''<ref>Tarski 1946:47</ref> or the '''law of detachment'''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Modus_ponens|title=Modus ponens - Encyclopedia of Mathematics|website=encyclopediaofmath.org|access-date=5 April 2018}}</ref> Enderton, for example, observes that "modus ponens can produce shorter formulas from longer ones",<ref>Enderton 2001:111</ref> and Russell observes that "the process of the inference cannot be reduced to symbols. Its sole record is the occurrence of β¦q [the consequent] ... an inference is the dropping of a true premise; it is the dissolution of an implication".<ref name="auto">Whitehead and Russell 1927:9</ref> A justification for the "trust in inference is the belief that if the two former assertions [the antecedents] are not in error, the final assertion [the consequent] is not in error".<ref name="auto"/> In other words: if one [[statement (logic)|statement]] or [[proposition]] [[material conditional|implies]] a second one, and the first statement or proposition is true, then the second one is also true. If ''P'' implies ''Q'' and ''P'' is true, then ''Q'' is true.<ref>{{cite book | last=Jago | first=Mark | title=Formal Logic | publisher= Humanities-Ebooks LLP |year= 2007 |isbn=978-1-84760-041-7 }}</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Modus ponens
(section)
Add topic