Talk:Validity vs. soundness

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
The premises can both be true, that is, it's possible for me to own a car but not a bicycle.  However, it's not necessarily true that, just because I don't own a bicycle I must own a car.  Thus, this argument is valid but not sound.}}
 
The premises can both be true, that is, it's possible for me to own a car but not a bicycle.  However, it's not necessarily true that, just because I don't own a bicycle I must own a car.  Thus, this argument is valid but not sound.}}
This argument is actually valid and sound as the first premise declares a direct dichotomy and the second premise eliminates on prong.
+
This argument is actually valid and sound as the first premise declares a direct dichotomy and the second premise eliminates one prong.
  
 
In any case, the current article has a link or two that will need to be expanded. I'll try to add the syllogism page and include the named forms and an explanation of why those forms are valid, as opposed to others. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:34, 30 August 2006 (MST)
 
In any case, the current article has a link or two that will need to be expanded. I'll try to add the syllogism page and include the named forms and an explanation of why those forms are valid, as opposed to others. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:34, 30 August 2006 (MST)

Revision as of 21:35, 30 August 2006

I rewrote this to correct an error and expand the topic a bit. The original content included the following:


  1. I either own a bicycle or a car.
  2. I don't own a bicycle.
  3. Therefore, I own a car.

The premises can both be true, that is, it's possible for me to own a car but not a bicycle. However, it's not necessarily true that, just because I don't own a bicycle I must own a car. Thus, this argument is valid but not sound.

This argument is actually valid and sound as the first premise declares a direct dichotomy and the second premise eliminates one prong.

In any case, the current article has a link or two that will need to be expanded. I'll try to add the syllogism page and include the named forms and an explanation of why those forms are valid, as opposed to others. -- Sans Deity 20:34, 30 August 2006 (MST)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox