PREDICATE LOGIC SHOWING INVALIDITY AND THE SIZE OF THE

IMPROVED HISTOGRAMS FOR SELECTIVITY ESTIMATION OF RANGE PREDICATES INTRODUCTION
KEDUDUKAN TINDAK PIDANA ASAL (PREDICATE CRIME) DALAM TINDAK PIDANA
PREDICATE LOGIC SHOWING INVALIDITY AND THE SIZE OF THE

SYMBOLIC LOGIC PREDICATE LOGIC PROOF STRATEGIES 1 IDENTIFY THE
SYMBOLIC LOGIC PREDICATE LOGIC SHOWING VALIDITY LOGICAL PROPERTIES &
SYMBOLIC LOGIC SYMBOLIZING PREDICATE LOGIC PRACTICE DICTIONARY B –

SHOWING INVALIDITY AND THE SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE

PREDICATE LOGIC

SHOWING INVALIDITY AND THE SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE



To show any argument (form) to be INVALID all you need to do is to find one version of it that makes all the premises TRUE and the conclusion FALSE. That is, all it takes is one counter-example.


One way to find a counter-example is just to control the universe of discourse (without also translating the premises and conclusion into English, as we did in Method 1).


Revelant Theory: Because all it takes is one counter-example, if you can show an argument to be invalid using an n size universe of discourse, then you can also always show invalidity using a universe of discourse with more than n elements. So showing that the argument is INVALID given a very small universe of discourse is enough to show the argument form to be INVALID.


To use this method you assume a universe of discourse with a very small number of elements, (usually one, such that it is unitary, or two, such that it is binary).


Tip: Sometimes you can’t make all the premises of the argument jointly true and the conclusion false with a universe of discourse of only one individual, so you will need to add more individuals. (You will learn when this is necessary later.)



symbolsentenceswithrelationalpredicates
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………………1 1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………1 2 PREDICATE


Tags: invalidity and, show invalidity, invalidity, logic, predicate, showing