modus tollens latin
modus tollendo tollens latin
denying the consequent

The validity of modus tollens can be clearly demonstrated through a truth table.

It is closely related to another valid form of argument, modus tollens.

The first to explicitly state the argument form modus tollens were the Stoics.

The rule of inference for necessary condition is modus tollens:

The falsification of statements occurs through modus tollens, via some observation.

More complex rewritings involving modus tollens are often seen, for instance in set theory:

The argument takes the form of syllogistic modus tollens:

This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens (denying the consequent).

The modus tollens of reasoning from known inferences to the unknown proposition, is not only a rigorous, but a very easy mode of proof.

In instances of modus tollens we assume as premises that p q is true and q is false.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and so is logically valid - if its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity.

Moore does not attack the skeptical premise; instead, he reverses the argument from being in the form of modus ponens to modus tollens.

Popular rules of inference include modus ponens, modus tollens from propositional logic and contraposition.

The argument is structured as a basic Modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence.

Some examples of valid argument forms are modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism and dilemma.

Strictly speaking these are not instances of modus tollens, but they may be derived using modus tollens using a few extra steps.

This form somewhat resembles modus tollens but is both different and fallacious, since "Q is undesirable" is not equivalent to "Q is false".

The Cyc inference engine performs general logical deduction (including modus ponens, modus tollens, universal quantification and existential quantification).

This illustrates Fred Dretske's aphorism that "[o]ne man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens"

This can be formulated as modus tollens in propositional logic: P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false.

Salmon stated, "Modus tollens without corroboration is empty; modus tollens with corroboration is induction."

Every use of modus tollens can be converted to a use of modus ponens and one use of transposition to the premise which is a material implication.

The inference rule modus tollens, also known as the law of contrapositive, validates the inference from implies and the contradictory of , to the contradictory of .

They accept the possibility of motion and apply modus tollens (contrapositive) to Zeno's argument to reach the conclusion that either motion is not a supertask or not all supertasks are impossible.

In propositional logic, modus tollens (or modus tollendo tollens and also denying the consequent) (Latin for "the way that denies by denying") is a valid argument form and a rule of inference.

An example of the proof of a sequent (Modus Tollendo Tollens in this case):

Modus tollendo tollens (Latin: the way that denies by denying) is a valid, simple argument form in classical logic sometimes referred to as denying the consequent.

In propositional logic, modus tollens (or modus tollendo tollens and also denying the consequent) (Latin for "the way that denies by denying") is a valid argument form and a rule of inference.