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
    There exists a point x at which A is true but B → B is no... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The argument A ⊢ B → B is invalid in the relevant logic model

    There exists a point x at which A is true but B → B is not true

    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

    An argument is valid in a model only when in any point at which the premises are...B → B fails at x when there is an accessibility relation Rxyz such that B is tru...The argument A ⊢ B → B is invalid in the relevant logic model

    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

    Therefore E cannot be false whenever D is true79%Goodstein's theorem is true but unprovable in PA77%Whatever is necessarily false is impossible77%K(p ∧ ¬Kp) is necessarily false (□¬K(p ∧ ¬Kp))77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logic-substructural
    View source passageHide passage
    An argument is valid in a model just when in any point at which the premises are true, so is the conclusion. The argument \(A \vdash B \rightarrow B\) is invalid because we may have a point \(x\) at which \(A\) is true, but at which \(B \rightarrow B\) is not. We can have \(B \rightarrow B\) fail to be true at \(x\) simply by having \(Rxyz\) where \(B\) is true at \(y\) but not at \(z\).

    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