Diff for "LogicalImplication"

Differences between revisions 1 and 20 (spanning 19 versions)

\section{Logical Implication or Entailment}

Consider 
\[
    X \models y
\]
where X represents some set of premises and y represents the conclusion. This simply means that the conjuction of all the premises entails the conclusion. We say that $X \models y$ if and only if all the models of $X$ are models of $y$.\bigskip

To show $X \models y$, show that $X \Rightarrow y$ is a tautology. We call a tautology of the form $A \models B$ a Logical Implication.\bigskip

In predicate calculus, we use $\vdash$ to denote deduction
\[
     \nabla \vdash Q
\]
where $\nabla$ represents the set of assumptions and $Q$ represents the conclusion. This expression reads ''$Q$ is deduced from $\nabla$.'' If $\nabla = \emptyset$, often denoted $\vdash Q$, then it is call a proof. That is $Q$ is deduced soley from the axioms.

(FirstOrderMathematicalLogicAngeloMargaris)

See LogicNotes

Back to ComputerTerms

-  ⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2003-10-03 19:46:21 → 
  Size: 362
  Editor: yakko
  Comment:
+   ← Revision 20 as of 2010-06-03 19:33:36 → ⇥
  Size: 939
  Editor: scot-camtasia
  Comment:
-Deletions are marked like this.
+Additions are marked like this.
 Line 1:
-= Logical Implication =
-Line 3:
+Line 2:
-Consider
+{{{#!latex
\section{Logical Implication or Entailment}
 Line 5:
- X |= y
+Consider 
\[
    X \models y
\]
where X represents some set of premises and y represents the conclusion. This simply means that the conjuction of all the premises entails the conclusion. We say that $X \models y$ if and only if all the models of $X$ are models of $y$.\bigskip
-Line 7:
+Line 11:
-where X is some set of premises and y is the conclusion. This simply means that the conjuction of all the premises logically implies the conclusion.
+To show $X \models y$, show that $X \Rightarrow y$ is a tautology. We call a tautology of the form $A \models B$ a Logical Implication.\bigskip
-Line 9:
+Line 13:
-To show X |= y, show that X => y is a tautology.
+In predicate calculus, we use $\vdash$ to denote deduction
\[
     \nabla \vdash Q
\]
where $\nabla$ represents the set of assumptions and $Q$ represents the conclusion. This expression reads ''$Q$ is deduced from $\nabla$.'' If $\nabla = \emptyset$, often denoted $\vdash Q$, then it is call a proof. That is $Q$ is deduced soley from the axioms. 
}}}
(FirstOrderMathematicalLogicAngeloMargaris)
-Line 11:
+Line 21:
-Therefore a tautology of the form A |= B is called a Logical Implication.

See
+See LogicNotes