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
    Therefore the connection requirement is not satisfied — 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

    Therefore the connection requirement is not satisfied

    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

    In (A ∧ ¬A) → B, the antecedent A ∧ ¬A and the consequent B need not share any s...The ex falso quodlibet — (A ∧ ¬A) → B — is not logically valid in relevant logicVSP 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 Variable Sharing Property (VSP) formalizes this connection require...77%This definitional connection does not hold in the case under dispute.72%At each stage of this process, a further connecting relation is requir...68%It is sufficient for a sufficient reason that such a conceptual connec...68%

    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