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
    The argument with premises K={'∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)', 'N0'} and co... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The argument with premises K and conclusion X is logically correct according to Tarski's condition (F)

    The argument with premises K={'∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)', 'N0'} and conclusion X='¬M00' is intuitively logically correct

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?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 LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Tarski's condition (F) requires that any logically correct argument must survive...The argument with premises K and conclusion X is logically correct according to ...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The argument with premises K and conclusion X is logically correct acc...91%Every argument of D3 is logically valid.84%The substituted argument with premises K′ and conclusion X′ does not h...83%To believe a conclusion obtained via Chunk and Permeate, one should be...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: tarski
    View source passageHide passage
    Let’s clarify the sense of condition (F) with an example. Consider a language LAr+ which is like LAr but has besides another individual constant, “2”, and another dyadic predicate, “Pd”, whose desired interpretations are the number 2 and the relation of being the immediate predecessor of, respectively. Let K be the following set of sentences of LAr+: {“∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)”, “N0”} (these sentences are true); and let X be the sentence “¬M00”. The argument with premises K and conclusion X is intuitively lo

    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