modus tollens造句

• It is very closely related to the rule of inference modus tollens.
• The falsification of statements occurs through " modus tollens ", via some observation.
• The history of the inference rule " modus tollens " goes back to antiquity.
• So then modus tollens wouldn't be included as an inference rule in constructive logics?
• The first to explicitly describe the argument form " modus tollens " were the Stoics.
• Modus ponens is closely related to another valid form of argument, " modus tollens ".
• In instances of " modus tollens " we assume as premises that p ?! q is true and q is false.
• Popular rules of inference in propositional logic include " modus ponens ", " modus tollens ", and contraposition.
• This is often called the " law of contrapositive ", or the " modus tollens " rule of inference.
• The inference rule " modus tollens " validates the inference from P implies Q and the contradictory of Q to the contradictory of P.
• The argument is structured as a basic modus tollens : if " creation " contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence.
• The argument is in the form of a modus tollens : If P then Q; but Q is implausible ( or " queer " ), so P is implausible.
• They accept the possibility of motion and apply modus tollens ( contrapositive ) to Zeno's argument to reach the conclusion that either motion is not a supertask or not all supertasks are impossible.
• Modus tollens is an admissible rule of intuitionistic logic : it's the converse, if ~ q?! ~ p then p?! q which the intuitionists reject ( and adding this rule to intuitiontistic logic gives classical logic ).
• Takes in the index " k " of an inference rule ( such as Modus tollens, Modus ponens ), and attempts to apply it to the two previously proved theorems " m " and " n ".
• This mode of argument bears the same relation to proof by mathematical induction that " If not B then not A " ( the style of " modus tollens " ) bears to " If A then B " ( the style of " modus ponens " ).
• Note that the goals always match the affirmed versions of the consequents of implications ( and not the negated versions as in modus tollens ) and even then, their antecedents are then considered as the new goals ( and not the conclusions as in affirming the consequent ) which ultimately must match known facts ( usually defined as consequents whose antecedents are always true ); thus, the inference rule which is used is modus ponens.