@abm1913 "You still have to account for all conditions that allow for Q to happen."
NO! You simply need to show that a contradiction (Q and ~Q) occur under conditions of ~P. No accounting for Q is necessary. If a contradiction is present, the proposed entity/event is not possible.
@MrCropper example: if i am not 12 then i am 13. I am not 13 therefore I am 12??? That is an invalid argument. Look at the possibilities: If I am a Person then I am a Woman....I am not a Woman therefore i am not a Person. When you proof this through a venn diagram youll see what i mean.
sorry about the double post :)
abm1913 1 year ago
neg elimi. explination was off. ~P>Q.......~Q...... therfore P must be true?You still have to account for all conditions that allow for Q to happen.
abm1913 1 year ago
@abm1913 "You still have to account for all conditions that allow for Q to happen."
NO! You simply need to show that a contradiction (Q and ~Q) occur under conditions of ~P. No accounting for Q is necessary. If a contradiction is present, the proposed entity/event is not possible.
MrCropper 1 year ago
@MrCropper example: if i am not 12 then i am 13. I am not 13 therefore I am 12??? That is an invalid argument. Look at the possibilities: If I am a Person then I am a Woman....I am not a Woman therefore i am not a Person. When you proof this through a venn diagram youll see what i mean.
abm1913 1 year ago
Comment removed
abm1913 1 year ago
Is he talking to small children?
wenaolong 1 year ago
Never mind on that last comment. I've got it.
nine9s 4 years ago
Just for clarification on the Negation Introduction, we could put that into words as "If and only if P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P." Right?
nine9s 4 years ago