adj
(logic) Involving induction of theories from facts.
adv
(logic) In a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.
n
(logic) A reasoning from the negative
n
(logic) A syllogism or form of argument in which the major premise is evident, but the minor is only probable.
adj
(logic, computing) Characterizing a logical process as being one of abduction or inference.
n
Determining plausibility based on a set of evidence.
n
A logical process of elimination by eliminating successively all of the inapplicable cases.
adj
(logic) Expressing the agreement of the two terms of a proposition.
n
(logic) A formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:
n
(logic) An argument from cause to effect; an a priori argument.
n
(countable, logic) Proof by deduction from known truths.
adj
(logic, of a proposition) that follows necessarily; tautologous.
n
(logic) The conditional part of a hypothetical proposition, i.e. p→q, where p is the antecedent, and q is the consequent.
n
(logic) A prerequisite to a clear understanding of the predicaments and categories, such as definitions of common terms.
n
(logic) A syntactically correct expression whose negation is a theorem.
n
(logic) An indirect argument which proves a thing by showing the impossibility or absurdity of the contrary.
n
(logic, grammar) The consequential clause in a conditional sentence.
adv
Alternative form of a priori [(logic) In a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.]
n
(logic, philosophy) A series of propositions organized so that the final proposition is a conclusion which is intended to follow logically from the preceding propositions, which function as premises.
n
(rhetoric) A logical fallacy in which a statement is determined to be true or false based on whether it would be pleasant or desirable, rather than based on reality.
n
(logic) The minor or second proposition in a categorical syllogism.
n
(logic, mathematics, proof theory) A fundamental assumption that serves as a basis for deduction of theorems; a postulate (sometimes distinguished from postulates as being universally applicable, whereas postulates are particular to a certain science or context).
n
(set theory) One of the axioms of set theory, equivalent to the statement that an arbitrary direct product of non-empty sets is non-empty; any version of said axiom, for example specifying the cardinality of the number of sets from which choices are made.
n
(logic) A syllogism in which all three propositions are of the form "All X are Y" or "X is a Y".
n
(logic, obsolete) Alternative form of Baroko [(logic, obsolete) A form or mode of syllogism in which the first proposition is a universal affirmative and the other two are particular negative.]
n
(logic, obsolete) A form or mode of syllogism in which the first proposition is a universal affirmative and the other two are particular negative.
n
A logical fallacy in which a premise of an argument contains a direct or indirect assumption that the conclusion is true; offering a circular argument; circular reasoning.
n
(logic) An "if and only if" conditional wherein the truth of each term depends on the truth of the other
n
(logic, obsolete) A form or mode of syllogism in which the first and third propositions are universal affirmatives and the third a particular negative.
n
(logic) The formulation of a general hypothesis which seeks to connect two or more facts.
n
(logic) In an argument or syllogism, the proposition that follows as a necessary consequence of the premises.
adj
(logic) Stating that one sentence is true if another is.
n
(logic) A proof showing that if an assumption A is true then a consequent statement or conclusion B must also be true, i.e. B is true on the condition that A is true.
n
(logic) The attribute or aggregate of attributes connoted by a term, contrasted with denotation.
n
(logic) The relation of consequent to antecedent.
n
(logic) The second half of a hypothetical proposition; Q, if the form of the proposition is "If P, then Q."
n
(logic, countable) A proposition that is false for all values of its propositional variables or Boolean atoms.
n
(logic) Of a proposition or theorem of the form: given that "If A is true, then B is true", then "If B is true, then A is true.".
n
(grammar) The act of making two (sometimes incompatible) things the subject/predicate of a proposition.
adj
(rare) Forming a proposition that follows from one already proved.
n
(countable, logic) The set of tuples of values that, used as arguments, do not satisfy the predicate.
n
(logic) The opposite process to induction (creation of a specific example of a general principle)
n
The application of logical principles, rigorous standards of evidence, and careful reasoning to the analysis and discussion of claims, beliefs, and issues.
n
(philosophy) A premise from which conclusions are drawn.
n
(logic) A process of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific, in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.
adj
(logic) Based on inferences from general principles.
n
The set of all the statements that can be deduced from a given set of statements.
n
inference in which the conclusion is of no greater generality than the premises
n
Inference in which the conclusion is of no greater generality than the premises.
n
The use of deductive reasoning.
n
(logic, philosophy) a belief which, if proved to be true, would imply outright or indirectly that another belief were false.
n
(logic) The negation in logic.
n
(obsolete, logic) An argument that leads to a conclusion.
n
(logic) A form of reductio ad absurdum which involves the denial of the first of a series of dependent propositions as a consequence of the denial of the last.
n
A form of logical fallacy in which a proposition that is required to prove another proposition can only be proved by means of assuming the truth of the proposition one is trying to prove; circular reasoning.
n
(logic) A type of syllogism of the form "if A is true then B is true; if C is true then D is true; either A or C is true; therefore either B or D is true".
n
(epistemology, philosophy) A form of abductive reasoning, application of intuition, or common sense regardless of technical parameters, to identify an ostensibly unknown subject by observing that subject's characteristics.
n
(logic) A syllogism with a required but unstated assumption.
n
(logic) The adducing of particular examples so as to lead to a universal conclusion; the argument by induction.
n
(logic) A syllogism which assumes as one of its premises a proposition which was the conclusion of a preceding syllogism (the prosyllogism).
n
(logic) The principle or axiom of logic stating that if a contradiction or a false proposition is proven to be true, then it proves that everything is true. In symbols: ⊥→P
n
A collection of propositions that, taken together, explain another proposition (the explanandum).
n
(logic) An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not; a specious argument.
n
One of two options on a true-or-false test.
adj
Alternative form of falsy [(programming) Evaluating to false in a Boolean context.]
n
A statement that is not proved but rather supposed or held as obvious, forming together with other such statements the basis of a system of statements obtained from them by inference; an axiom.
n
(philosophy, logic) In artificial intelligence, modus ponens.
n
Inductive reasoning from detailed facts to general principles.
n
Inductive reasoning from detailed facts to general principles
adj
used to mark the premise of a syllogistic argument
n
(logic, obsolete) ignoratio elenchi
n
(dated, logic) A dilemma
n
(logic, rare) A lesser proposition or subsumption within a larger syllogism.
adj
Involving logical deduction by the formation and verification of hypotheses.
n
(propositional calculus) The conclusion of an implication.
n
(grammar) The antecedent in the if-clause; the well-formed formula (wff).
n
(propositional calculus) The hypothesis of an implication
adj
(Of a logical fallacy) Deriving from the linguistic expression used; for reason of ambiguity, division, etc.
adj
(logic) Having the property that a contradiction can be derived.
n
(logic) Derivation of general principles from specific instances.
n
The use of induction in scientific reasoning.
n
(semantics) A recursive definition.
n
The process of making inferences based upon observed patterns, or simple repetition. Often used in reference to predictions about what will happen or does happen, based upon what has happened.
n
(logic) A regress into an infinite sequence of propositions in an attempt to found the truth of the proposition Pᵢ on the truth of the proposition Pᵢ₊₁.
n
(logic) A rhetorical device with an omitted, but obvious conclusion, made to increase the force of an argument.
n
(logic) The non-truth-preserving proposition constructed by negating both the premise and conclusion of an initially given proposition.
n
(economics) The proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.
n
(mathematics) A proposition proved or accepted for immediate use in the proof of some other proposition.
v
(intransitive, derogatory) To engage in excessive or inappropriate application of logic.
adj
(of a premise) Containing the major term in a categorical syllogism.
n
(logic) In a categorical syllogism, the premise whose terms are the syllogism's major term and middle term.
n
(logic) In a syllogism, the term that is the predicate of the conclusion.
n
(logic) An implication as defined in classical propositional logic, leading to the truth of paradoxes of material implication such as Q⊢P→Q, to be read as "any proposition whatsoever is a sufficient condition for a true proposition".
n
(logic) One of the propositions making up a syllogism.
n
(logic) The term of a syllogism that appears in both the major premise and the minor premise, but not in the conclusion.
adj
(logic) Acting as the subject of the second premise of a categorical syllogism, which then also acts as the subject of its conclusion.
n
(logic) The second premise in a categorical syllogism, whose subject is the minor term and whose predicate is the middle term.
n
(logic) The subject of the conclusion in a categorical syllogism.
n
(logic) An invalid argument, which has this form:
n
(philosophy, logic) A valid form of argument in which the antecedent of a conditional proposition is affirmed, thereby entailing the affirmation of the consequent. Modus ponendo ponens has the form:
n
(philosophy, logic) A valid form of argument in which the antecedent of a conditional proposition is affirmed, thereby entailing the infirmation of the consequent. Modus ponendo tollens has the form:
n
(philosophy, logic) A valid form of argument in which the antecedent of a conditional proposition is affirmed, thereby entailing the affirmation of the consequent. Modus ponens has the form
n
(philosophy, logic) A valid form of argument in which the antecedent of a conditional proposition is negated, thereby entailing the affirmation of the consequent. Modus ponendo tollens has the form:
n
(philosophy, logic) A valid form of argument in which the antecedent of a conditional proposition is infirmed, thereby entailing the infirmation of the consequent. Modus tollendo tollens has the form:
n
(philosophy, logic) A valid form of argument in which the consequent of a conditional proposition is denied, thus implying the denial of the antecedent. Modus tollens has this form:
n
(logic) An argument expressed as a single syllogism
n
(logic) A statement Q in relation to statement P such that P implies Q.
n
(logic) The proposition that is to be negated.
n
(logic, countable) A proposition which is the contradictory of another proposition and which can be obtained from that other proposition by the appropriately placed addition/insertion of the word "not". (Or, in symbolic logic, by prepending that proposition with the symbol for the logical operator "not".)
n
(logic) The proposition that is to be negated.
n
A logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism isn't distributed.
n
(logic) Any invalid argument in which the conclusion cannot be logically deduced from the premises.
n
(chiefly logic) That which is not implied; the opposite of an implication.
n
(logic) A proposition obtained by obversion, e.g. All men are mortal => No man is immortal.
n
(logic) An immediate inference that denies the opposite of something previously affirmed.
adj
(logic) Of a language or notation, such as that of formal propositional calculus: where the process of inference from premises to conclusion is explicitly laid out.
n
A paradox, related to probability, where the expected win for repeated play of a game is infinite, so it seems that a player should be willing to pay any price to take part.
n
(philosophy, logic, uncountable) The logical fallacy of begging the question (i.e., "assuming the conclusion").
n
(logic) A number of propositions that, together, constitute a sequence of syllogisms
n
(logic) A method for finding the middle term of a syllogism in Aristotlean analytics.
n
(logic) Something self-evident that can be assumed as the basis of an argument.
n
(logic) That which is predicated; a category.
n
(logic) A term of a statement, where the statement may be true or false depending on whether the thing referred to by the values of the statement's variables has the property signified by that (predicative) term.
n
(logic) The act of making something the subject or predicate of a proposition.
n
(philosophy, logic, linguistics) A proposition laid out previously; a proposition from which another proposition is inferred.
n
(logic) Any of the first propositions of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is deduced.
n
(logic) The principle or axiom of classical logic and some other logical systems stating that if a contradiction or a false proposition is proven to be true, then it proves that everything is true. In symbols: ⊥→P
n
(logic) principle of explosion
n
Alternative form of prosyllogism [(logic) A syllogism that is preliminary or logically essential to another syllogism.]
adj
(logic, dated) Only affirming the possibility that a predicate be actualised.
n
A logical method to identify an entity of interest among several ones by excluding all other entities.
n
(countable, logic, mathematics) A sequence of statements consisting of axioms, assumptions, statements already demonstrated in another proof, and statements that logically follow from previous statements in the sequence, and which concludes with a statement that is the object of the proof.
n
(logic) A logical fallacy consisting of providing one or more examples as a proof of a more general statement.
n
(logic) The indirect verification or falsification of a statement by the verification or falsification of each of the finite number of cases which arise therefrom.
n
(computational linguistics) A basic element of a proposition.
n
(countable, logic) The content of an assertion that may be taken as being true or false and is considered abstractly without reference to the linguistic sentence that constitutes the assertion; (Aristotelian logic) a predicate of a subject that is denied or affirmed and connected by a copula.
n
(logic) The conclusion of such a syllogism, which becomes a premise of the following syllogism.
n
(philosophy, logic) A particular theory of the relationships between propositions
n
(philosophy, logic) A spurious or meaningless proposition
n
(logic) A premise placed after its conclusion.
n
(mathematics, logic) The method of disproving a statement by assuming the statement is true and, with that assumption, arriving at a blatant contradiction.
n
(logic) reasoning from specific examples to general laws
n
(logic) A conditional with a false antecedent and a true consequent.
adj
(default logic, of a default) Having all its justifications entailing its conclusion.
n
(logic) A formula with no free variables.
n
(logic) logical connective
n
(logic, countable) A specific mechanism for such a syntactic translation.
n
Obsolete form of syllogism. [(logic) An argument whose conclusion is supported by two premises, of which one contains the term that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other contains the term that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term that is excluded from the conclusion.]
n
(logic) A simple or atomic proposition.
n
(logic) A valid simple argument.
n
(logic) A paradox arising from vague predicates and repeatedly applying a small difference. For example, removing one grain from a heap of sand still leaves a heap, yet removing enough grains will eventually not leave a heap.
n
a theorem or other statement that follows directly from a more general statement
n
(logic) A material implication that is acted upon by the necessity operator from modal logic.
adj
(logic) Said of one proposition with respect to another one: that the former entails the latter, but the latter does not entail the former.
adj
(logic) Asserting only a part of what is asserted in a related proposition.
n
(logic) A universal proposition.
n
(logic) A particular proposition, as opposed to a universal one.
n
(logic) Either of a pair of propositions at least one of which must be true
n
(logic) That of which something is stated.
n
(logic) The premise of a syllogism that contains the minor term.
n
(logic) The formulas on the right-hand side of a sequent.
n
(Lojban grammar) an argument passed to a selbri (“predicate”)
n
(logic) A universal proposition from which can be inferred a corresponding subaltern
adj
(logic) In supervaluationism, necessarily false regardless of the values of variables.
adj
(logic, philosophy, of a set of properties) In a relationship with another set such that membership in the other set implies membership in the present set
n
(logic) Something supposed to be true; an assumption
n
(logic) An argument whose conclusion is supported by two premises, of which one contains the term that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other contains the term that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term that is excluded from the conclusion.
n
(logic) A deduction from the general to the particular.
n
(mathematics, colloquial, nonstandard) A mathematical statement that is expected to be true
n
(logic) The theory that every proposition and its negation is true.
n
(logic) A proposition which is true only because it is a conditional statement with a necessarily false premise, or which asserts a property of all elements of an empty domain of discourse.
adj
(logic) Of an argument: whose conclusion is always true whenever its premises are true.
n
(logic) A fallacy in which the premise is used to prove a conclusion which is then used to prove the premise.
adj
(logic) Said of one proposition with respect to another one: that the latter entails the former, but the former does not entail the latter.
Note: Concept clusters like the one above are an experimental OneLook
feature. We've grouped words and phrases into thousands of clusters
based on a statistical analysis of how they are used in writing. Some
of the words and concepts may be vulgar or offensive. The names of the
clusters were written automatically and may not precisely describe
every word within the cluster; furthermore, the clusters may be
missing some entries that you'd normally associate with their
names. Click on a word to look it up on OneLook.
Our daily word games Threepeat and Compound Your Joy are going strong. Bookmark and enjoy!
Today's secret word is 6 letters and means "Not working as originally intended." Can you find it?