209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + + + +
→Incorrect example: new section
But, if we say "R is true" then it does not logically follow that Q is true, nor is is the case if in both instances we swap true with not true. Indeed, if R is true then it is possible that Q is also true, but we cannot conclude that it definitely is. As such, I have deleted the second rule. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 21:36, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
But, if we say "R is true" then it does not logically follow that Q is true, nor is is the case if in both instances we swap true with not true. Indeed, if R is true then it is possible that Q is also true, but we cannot conclude that it definitely is. As such, I have deleted the second rule. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 21:36, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
== Incorrect example ==
If A is true then B is true.
If A is true then given this premise there is only one conclusion that we can be totally certain of, that B is also true.
We cannot say for sure that if B is not true then A will no be true. This is not supported by the premise. The premise states only the relationship of B dependent upon A, not vice versa. Of course we could guess, given that true or false are the only options here, but there is no premise to support the conclusion that if B is not true then A is not true. It is not the easiest concept to explain through a means such as this, but I'm afraid I am correct and I will remove the example again if it is added, for it is not an example of deduction. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 22:20, 30 October 2009 (EDT)