Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    In (A ∧ ¬A) → B, the antecedent A ∧ ¬A and the consequent... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The ex falso quodlibet — (A ∧ ¬A) → B — is not logically valid in relevant logic

    In (A ∧ ¬A) → B, the antecedent A ∧ ¬A and the consequent B need not share any sentential variable

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    The ex falso quodlibet — (A ∧ ¬A) → B — is not logically valid in relevant logicTherefore the connection requirement is not satisfiedVSP requires that antecedent and consequent share a sentential variable for a co...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    The antecedent A ∧ ¬A and the consequent A share the sentential variab...91%VSP requires that antecedent and consequent share a sentential variabl...86%A conditional is logically valid only if the antecedent and consequent...83%Under VSP, only those conditionals where antecedent and consequent sha...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: hyperintensionality
    View source passageHide passage
    In this program, an agreed upon necessary (though, in general, not sufficient) condition for a conditional to be logically valid is that there be some connection between antecedent and consequent. Historically, this has often been phrased via a requirement called the Variable Sharing Property (VSP): \(A \rightarrow B\) is valid only when \(A\) and \(B\) share some sentential variable or parameter (cf. Anderson & Belnap 1975: 32–3). VSP delivers hyperintensional distinctions: conditionals wit

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective