Difference between revisions of "Modus ponens and Modus tollens" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Paid}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{copyedited}}
 +
'''Modus Ponens''' and '''Modus Tollens''' are forms of valid inferences. By Modus Ponens, from a conditional statement and its antecedent, the consequent of the conditional statement is inferred: e.g. from “If John loves Mary, Mary is happy” and “John loves Mary,” “Mary is happy” is inferred. By Modus Tollens, from a conditional statement and the negation of its consequent, the negation of the antecedent of the conditional statement is inferred: e.g. from “If today is Monday, then tomorrow is Tuesday” and “Tomorrow is not Tuesday,” “Today is not Monday” is inferred. The validity of these inferences is widely recognized and they are incorporated into many [[logic|logical systems]].
 +
{{toc}}
  
== Modus ponens ==
+
== Modus Ponens ==
In [[logic]], '''modus ponens''' ([[Latin]]: ''mode that affirms''; often abbreviated '''MP''') is a [[valid]]ity, simple [[argument form]]. It is a very common form of reasoning, and takes the following form:
+
'''Modus Ponens''' ([[Latin]]: ''mode that affirms;'' often abbreviated as '''MP''') is a form of valid inference. An instance of MP inferences involves two premises: One is a ''conditional statement,'' i.e. a statement of the form ''If A, then B;'' the other is the affirmation of the ''antecedent'' of the conditional statement, i.e. ''A'' in the conditional statement ''If A, then B.'' From these such pairs of premises, '''MP''' allows us to infer the ''consequent'' of the conditional statement, i.e. ''B'' in ''If A then B.'' The validity of such inferences is intuitively clear, since ''B'' must be true if the statements, ''If A, then B'' and ''A'' are both true.
  
:If P, then Q.
+
Here is an example of an '''MP''' inference:
:P.
 
:Therefore, Q.
 
  
In [[logical operator]] notation:
+
<blockquote>If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
:P → Q
+
<br/>Jack is innocent.
:P
+
<br/>Therefore, Jack has an alibi.</blockquote>
:⊢ Q
 
where ⊢ represents the [[logical assertion]] ("Therefore Q is true").
 
  
The modus ponens rule may also be written:
+
The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to accept the third.
  
:<u>P → Q, &nbsp; &nbsp;P</u>
+
One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion ''assuming'' that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first statement of the above example of '''MP''' inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.
: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Q
 
  
The argument form has two premises. The first premise is the "if–then" or ''[[Logical conditional|conditional]]'' claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P, the ''antecedent'' of the conditional claim, is true. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the ''consequent'' of the conditional claim, must be true as well.
+
The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is ''soundness.'' An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false premises.
  
Here is an example of an argument that fits the form ''modus ponens'':
+
Modus Ponens is referred to also as ''Affirming the Antecedent'' and ''Law of Detachment.''
  
:If today is Tuesday, then I will go to work.
+
==Modus Tollens==
:Today is Tuesday.
 
:Therefore, I will go to work.
 
  
The fact that the argument is [[validity|valid]] cannot assure us that any of the statements in the argument are [[Truth|true]]; the validity of modus ponens tells us that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. It is wise to recall that a valid [[Logical argument|argument]] within which one or more of the premises are not true is called an ''unsound'' argument, whereas if all the premises are true, then the argument is ''sound''. In most logical systems, modus ponens is considered to be valid.  However, the instances of its use may be either sound or unsound:
+
'''Modus Tollens''' ([[Latin]] for "mode that denies" abbreviated as '''MT''') is another form of valid inference. As in the case of '''MP,''' an instance of '''MT''' inferences involves two premises. One is again a conditional statement ''If A then B,'' while the other, unlike '''MP,''' is the negation of the consequent, i.e. a statement of the form ''not B.'' From such pairs of premises, '''MT''' allows us to infer the negation of the antecedent of the conditional statement, i.e. ''not A.'' To see the validity of such inferences, assume toward contradiction that ''A'' is true given the two premises, ''If A then B'' and not ''B'' are true. Then, by applying '''MP''' to A and ''If A then B,'' we can derive ''B.'' This is contradictory and thus ''A'' is false, i.e. ''not A.''
:If the argument is modus ponens and its premises are true, then it is sound.
+
:The premises are true.
+
Here is an example of an '''MT''' inference
:Therefore, it is a sound argument.
 
  
A [[propositional logic|propositional]] argument using modus ponens is said to be deductive.
+
<blockquote>If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
 +
<br/>Jack does not have an alibi.
 +
<br/>Therefore, Jack is not innocent.</blockquote>
  
Modus ponens can also be referred to as [[affirming the antecedent]] or "Law of Detachment".
+
'''MT''' is often referred to also as ''Denying the Consequent.'' (Note that there are kinds of inferences that are similarly-named but invalid, such as ''Affirming the Consequent'' or ''Denying the Antecedent.'')
  
In [[metalogic]]s, modus ponens is the cut rule. The [[cut-elimination theorem]] says that the cut is valid (an [[admissible rule]]) in some logical calculus ([[sequent calculus]]). 
+
==Formal Representations==
  
For an amusing dialog that problematizes modus ponens, see [[Lewis Carroll]]'s "[[What the Tortoise Said to Achilles]]."
+
'''MP''' and '''MT''' are widely recognized as valid and, in fact, there are various kinds of [[logical systems|logic]] that validate both of them. Formal representations of these forms of inferences are given by using the language of [[propositional calculus | propositional logic]]:
  
== Modus tollens==
+
:<math>P \rightarrow Q, P \vdash Q</math>
'''Modus tollens''' ([[Latin language|Latin]] for "mode that denies") is the formal name for '''indirect proof''' or '''proof by [[contrapositive]]''' (contrapositive inference), often abbreviated to '''MT'''. It can also be referred to as '''denying the consequent''', and is a [[validity|valid]] form of argument (unlike similarly-named but invalid arguments such as [[affirming the consequent]] or [[denying the antecedent]]).
+
:<math>P \rightarrow Q, \lnot Q \vdash \lnot P</math>
 +
(where <math>P \rightarrow Q</math> represents the conditional statement ''If P then Q,'' <math>\lnot P</math>, the negation of ''P;'' and <math>\vdash</math> means that, from the statements on the left side of it, the right side can be derived.)
 +
Particularly, '''MP''' is so fundamental that it is often taken as a basic inferential rule of logical systems (while '''MT''' is usually a rule that can be derived by using basic ones in most of the logical systems). Here, we present several different formal representations of '''MP.'''
  
Modus tollens has the following [[argument form]]:
+
''Natural Deduction''
:If P, then Q.
 
:Q is false.
 
:Therefore, P is false.
 
  
In [[logical operator]] notation:
+
:<u>P Q &nbsp; &nbsp;P</u>
:P &rarr; Q
+
: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Q
:&not;Q
 
:&#8866; &not;P
 
where &#8866; represents the [[logical assertion]].
 
 
 
Or in [[set theory|set-theoretic]] form:
 
 
 
:P &sube; Q
 
:x &notin; Q
 
:&there4;x&notin; P
 
  
("P is a subset of Q. x is not in Q. Therefore, x is not in P.")
+
''Sequent Calculus'' ('''MP''' is usually called Cut in sequent calculus.)
  
The argument has two premises. The first premise is the conditional "if-then" statement, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that Q is false. From these two premises, it can be logically concluded that P must be false. (Why? If P were true, then Q would be true, by premise 1, but it isn't, by premise 2.)
+
:<u><math>\Gamma \Rightarrow P \rightarrow Q</math> &nbsp; &nbsp;<math>\Delta \Rightarrow P</math></u>
 +
: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<math>\Gamma \Delta \Rightarrow B</math>
  
Consider an example:
+
==References==
:If there is fire here, then there is oxygen here.
 
:There is no oxygen here.
 
:Therefore, there is no fire here.
 
  
Another example:
+
*Bergmann, Merrie, Moor, James, and Nelson, Jack. ''The Logic Book.'' McGraw-Hill. 1997.
:If Lizzy was the murderer, then she owns an axe.
+
*Chellas, Brian F. ''Modal Logic: An Introduction.'' Cambridge. 1980.
:Lizzy does not own an axe.
+
*Copi, Irving M., and Cohen, Carl. ''Introduction to Logic.'' Prentice Hall. 2004.
:Therefore, Lizzy was not the murderer.
+
*Hurley, Patrick J. ''A Concise Introduction to Logic.'' Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
 +
*Jeffrey, Richard C. ''Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits.'' McGraw-Hill. 1990.
 +
*Johnson, Robert M. ''Fundamentals of Reasoning: A Logic Book.'' Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
 +
*Kahane, Howard, and Cavender, Nancy. ''Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric.'' Wadsworth. 1997.
 +
*Quine, Willard V. O. ''Mathematical Logic.'' Harvard. 1981.
 +
*Shand, John. ''Arguing Well.'' Routledge. 2000.
 +
*Suppes, Patrick. ''Introduction to Logic.'' Dover. 1999.
 +
*Walton, Douglas N. ''Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation.'' Cambridge. 1989.
  
Just suppose that the premises are both true. If Lizzy was the murderer, then she really must have owned an axe; and it is a fact that Lizzy does not own an axe. What follows?  That she was not the murderer.
+
==External Links==
 
+
All links retrieved November 9, 2022.
It is important to note that when an argument is [[validity|valid]], ''if'' the premises are true, the conclusion ''must'' follow. Suppose we decide that it is not the case that: if Lizzy was the murderer, then she would have to have owned an axe; Perhaps we have found that she borrowed someone's. This means that the first premise is ''false''. But notice that it does not mean the argument is ''invalid'', since it remains the case that, ''if'' the premises are true (and in this case they are not), the conclusion ''would'' follow, even though in this particular case the premise is false. An argument can be valid even though it has a false premise. Such an argument can reach a false conclusion.  
+
*Mustafa M. Dagli. [http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Logi/LogiDagl.htm Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and Likeness.]
 
+
*Philosophy Pages. [http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10b.htm Argument Forms.]  
:If a modus tollens argument has true premises, then it is sound.
+
*Wolfram MathWorld. [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModusTollens.html Modus Tollens]  
:The argument is unsound
 
:Therefore, its premises are false.
 
 
 
(Of course this particular argument applied to itself would be a paradox)
 
 
 
Modus tollens became somewhat legendary when it was used by [[Karl Popper]] in his proposed response to the [[problem of induction]], [[Falsificationism]].
 
 
 
== References==
 
 
 
==External links==
 
* [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModusTollens.html mathworld.wolfram.com: Modus Tollens]
 
  
 
[[Category:Philosophy and religion]]
 
[[Category:Philosophy and religion]]
 
[[Category:Logic]]
 
[[Category:Logic]]
 
  
 
{{Credit2|Modus_ponens|69578815|Modus_tollens|63892360}}
 
{{Credit2|Modus_ponens|69578815|Modus_tollens|63892360}}

Latest revision as of 19:28, 9 November 2022

Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens are forms of valid inferences. By Modus Ponens, from a conditional statement and its antecedent, the consequent of the conditional statement is inferred: e.g. from “If John loves Mary, Mary is happy” and “John loves Mary,” “Mary is happy” is inferred. By Modus Tollens, from a conditional statement and the negation of its consequent, the negation of the antecedent of the conditional statement is inferred: e.g. from “If today is Monday, then tomorrow is Tuesday” and “Tomorrow is not Tuesday,” “Today is not Monday” is inferred. The validity of these inferences is widely recognized and they are incorporated into many logical systems.

Modus Ponens

Modus Ponens (Latin: mode that affirms; often abbreviated as MP) is a form of valid inference. An instance of MP inferences involves two premises: One is a conditional statement, i.e. a statement of the form If A, then B; the other is the affirmation of the antecedent of the conditional statement, i.e. A in the conditional statement If A, then B. From these such pairs of premises, MP allows us to infer the consequent of the conditional statement, i.e. B in If A then B. The validity of such inferences is intuitively clear, since B must be true if the statements, If A, then B and A are both true.

Here is an example of an MP inference:

If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.


Jack is innocent.


Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion assuming that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first statement of the above example of MP inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is soundness. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false premises.

Modus Ponens is referred to also as Affirming the Antecedent and Law of Detachment.

Modus Tollens

Modus Tollens (Latin for "mode that denies" abbreviated as MT) is another form of valid inference. As in the case of MP, an instance of MT inferences involves two premises. One is again a conditional statement If A then B, while the other, unlike MP, is the negation of the consequent, i.e. a statement of the form not B. From such pairs of premises, MT allows us to infer the negation of the antecedent of the conditional statement, i.e. not A. To see the validity of such inferences, assume toward contradiction that A is true given the two premises, If A then B and not B are true. Then, by applying MP to A and If A then B, we can derive B. This is contradictory and thus A is false, i.e. not A.

Here is an example of an MT inference

If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.


Jack does not have an alibi.


Therefore, Jack is not innocent.

MT is often referred to also as Denying the Consequent. (Note that there are kinds of inferences that are similarly-named but invalid, such as Affirming the Consequent or Denying the Antecedent.)

Formal Representations

MP and MT are widely recognized as valid and, in fact, there are various kinds of logic that validate both of them. Formal representations of these forms of inferences are given by using the language of propositional logic:

(where represents the conditional statement If P then Q, , the negation of P; and means that, from the statements on the left side of it, the right side can be derived.) Particularly, MP is so fundamental that it is often taken as a basic inferential rule of logical systems (while MT is usually a rule that can be derived by using basic ones in most of the logical systems). Here, we present several different formal representations of MP.

Natural Deduction

P → Q    P
       Q

Sequent Calculus (MP is usually called Cut in sequent calculus.)

   
       

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Bergmann, Merrie, Moor, James, and Nelson, Jack. The Logic Book. McGraw-Hill. 1997.
  • Chellas, Brian F. Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge. 1980.
  • Copi, Irving M., and Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall. 2004.
  • Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
  • Jeffrey, Richard C. Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits. McGraw-Hill. 1990.
  • Johnson, Robert M. Fundamentals of Reasoning: A Logic Book. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Kahane, Howard, and Cavender, Nancy. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Wadsworth. 1997.
  • Quine, Willard V. O. Mathematical Logic. Harvard. 1981.
  • Shand, John. Arguing Well. Routledge. 2000.
  • Suppes, Patrick. Introduction to Logic. Dover. 1999.
  • Walton, Douglas N. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge. 1989.

External Links

All links retrieved November 9, 2022.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.