MHB Is the Validity of an Argument Dependent on Premise Truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the validity of an argument is contingent on the truth of its premises. It is argued that false premises can lead to true conclusions in valid arguments, exemplified by logical forms such as $p\land\neg p\models q\to q$. The distinction between propositional variables and constants is emphasized, indicating that fixed truth values complicate the definition of validity. The validity of specific arguments involving fixed propositions, such as geographical statements, is questioned, highlighting the need for clarity in definitions. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the complexity of argument validity in relation to premise truth.
solakis1
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
it has been claimed that in an argument false premises can never produce a correct conclusion.is that correct ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"An argument" is not a term that is used in most textbooks of mathematical logic. What Copi calls a valid or invalid argument is a true (correspondingly, false) claim about logical (or semantic) consequence. This claim is usually denoted by $\Gamma\models A$ where $\Gamma$ is a set of formulas and $A$ is another formula.

That said, a valid argument with false premises can definitely have a true conclusion. For example, $p\land\neg p\models q\to q$ is a valid argument (form).
 
If tomorrow is Christmas then 2+ 2= 4.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
"An argument" is not a term that is used in most textbooks of mathematical logic. What Copi calls a valid or invalid argument is a true (correspondingly, false) claim about logical (or semantic) consequence. This claim is usually denoted by $\Gamma\models A$ where $\Gamma$ is a set of formulas and $A$ is another formula.

That said, a valid argument with false premises can definitely have a true conclusion. For example, $p\land\neg p\models q\to q$ is a valid argument (form).
Is the following argument valid?
1)if 2+2=4,then 3+6=5.......false
2) 2+2 is not 4..........false
conclusion: 3+6 is not 5........true
Here we also have false premises implying true conclusion
 
Since the term "argument" is not usually used in books on mathematical logic, as I wrote above, I am not familiar with the definition of a valid argument when it involves digits, + and =. If the statements occurring in an argument are proposition or predicate formulas that consist of some generic propositional variables, functionl and predicate symbols, then I believe I know the definition, but not when formulas have symbols that usually have a fixed meaning.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Since the term "argument" is not usually used in books on mathematical logic, as I wrote above, I am not familiar with the definition of a valid argument when it involves digits, + and =. If the statements occurring in an argument are proposition or predicate formulas that consist of some generic propositional variables, functionl and predicate symbols, then I believe I know the definition, but not when formulas have symbols that usually have a fixed meaning.
okay let me get rid of the +,=

1) if London is in England ,then Paris is in Gernany......false
2) but London is not in England...............false
conclusion: hence Paris is not in Gernany...........true
Is that argument valid?
That is propositional calculus
London is in England is a proposition which is true
Paris is in Gernany is also a proposition which false
Hence Paris in not in Germany is proposition which is true
London is not in England is a proposition which is false
 
Instead of writing another example it would be more useful to provide a definition of a valid argument.

Evgeny.Makarov said:
If the statements occurring in an argument are proposition or predicate formulas that consist of some generic propositional variables, functional and predicate symbols, then I believe I know the definition, but not when formulas have symbols that usually have a fixed meaning.
Your argument involves not just propositional variables, but propositional constants (such as "London is in England"), which have fixed truth values.
 
i did write on my post No 6 that the argument form corresponding to the argument mentioned is the formula ((p->q)$~p)->~q) where p,q are variables and the above argument is just an instant subsitution of this formula.
But i don't know why that disappeared from my post No 6
 
The argument that derives $\neg q$ from $p\to q$ and $\neg p$ is not valid. You most likely already know this.
 
  • #10
OK
Evgeny.Makarov said:
The argument that derives $\neg q$ from $p\to q$ and $\neg p$ is not valid. You most likely already know this.
OK and one of the substitution instances of this argument form is my argument in post No 6
And i ask you again is the argument in that post valid?
 
  • #11
solakis said:
And i ask you again is the argument in that post valid?
And I am telling you again:
Evgeny.Makarov said:
If the statements occurring in an argument are proposition or predicate formulas that consist of some generic propositional variables, functional and predicate symbols, then I believe I know the definition, but not when formulas have symbols that usually have a fixed meaning.
And knowing your tendency to conceal the definitions you use, I expect you to ask this question several more times without revealing the definition or the reason for your question.
 
Back
Top