vacuously true造句

• It is vacuously true precisely because there are no values of that could serve as counterexamples.
• Outside of mathematics, statements which can be characterized informally as vacuously true can be misleading.
• The main antecedent is vacuously true.
• Axiom ( 3 ) becomes vacuously true under ( M3 ) and is therefore not needed in this context.
• Therefore, Tur醤's result is vacuously true and cannot be used to help prove the Riemann hypothesis.
• A statement S is " vacuously true " if it resembles the statement P \ Rightarrow Q, where P is known to be false.
• If there is no possible move, then the lemma is vacuously true ( and the first player loses the normal play game by definition ).
• In pure mathematics, vacuously true statements are not generally of interest by themselves, but they frequently arise as the base case of proofs by mathematical induction.
• Note that the empty set is a subset of every set ( the statement that all elements of the empty set are also members of any set " A " is vacuously true ).
• :No, that's not true . ( Well, I suppose you could argue that it's vacuously true because you can't go faster than light in the first place . ) I've never heard that one before.
• Under the first representation it is vacuously true that if you commit a forbidden act, then you ought to commit any other act, regardless of whether that second act was obligatory, permitted or forbidden ( Von Wright 1956, cited in Aqvist 1994 ).
• It should also be noted that the definition of ?% makes vacuously true certain sentences, since when it speaks of " every world that is accessible to " w " " it takes for granted the usual mathematical interpretation of the word " every " ( see vacuous truth ).
• It is comprehensive, factually accurate, well-written, uncontroversial, some of the best work on Wikipedia, contains a brief but sufficient lead section, includes images where appropriate ( vacuously true ), has subheads, has a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents, and complies with the standards set by any relevant wikiprojects.
• "For any integer x, if x > 5 then x > 3 . "  This statement is true non-vacuously ( since some integers are greater than 5 ), but some of its implications are only vacuously true : for example, when x is the integer 2, the statement implies the vacuous truth that " if 2 > 5 then 2 > 3 ".
• On Lewis's account, A > C is ( a ) vacuously true if and only if there are no worlds where A is true ( for example, if A is logically or metaphysically impossible ); ( b ) non-vacuously true if and only if, among the worlds where A is true, some worlds where C is true are closer to the actual world than any world where C is not true; or ( c ) false otherwise.
• On Lewis's account, A > C is ( a ) vacuously true if and only if there are no worlds where A is true ( for example, if A is logically or metaphysically impossible ); ( b ) non-vacuously true if and only if, among the worlds where A is true, some worlds where C is true are closer to the actual world than any world where C is not true; or ( c ) false otherwise.
• So, it's more like defining continuity by " it's smooth and doesn't have an holes " than by " The limit of f ( x ) as x approaches c must exist and be equal to f ( c ) . ( If the point c in the domain of f is not an accumulation point of the domain, then this condition is vacuously true, since x cannot approach c . ) " ( from the relevant article ).
• The Uniqueness Assumption is the thesis that, for any antecedent A, there is a unique possible world where A is true, while the Limit Assumption is the thesis that, for a given antecedent A, there is a unique set of worlds where A is true that are closest . ( Notice that the Uniqueness Assumption entails the Limit Assumption, but the Limit Assumption does not entail the Uniqueness Assumption . ) On Stalnaker's account, A > C is non-vacuously true if and only if, at the closest world where A is true, C is true.