→ tark5139:這概念似乎和1.1最後五行描述的差不多 09/19 01:15
推 hseuler:我今天看到的另一個網站也是這樣寫 09/19 19:03
轉貼自：http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Validity 原作者：WordIQ
In logic, an argument is said to be valid if and only if the supposed truth
of its premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion. There are other ways
to formulate this basic definition: the premises entail the conclusion; it
cannot be the case both that the premises are true and the conclusion false;
the falsehood of the conclusion entails the falsehood of at least one
premise; etc.
A formula (also sentence or statement), as opposed to an argument, is said to
be valid (or tautologous) if and only if it has all Ts (the truth-value true)
in its truth table (refer to the truth table article). The rest of the
article is about the validity of arguments, not formulas.
The definition of validity does not say that the premises are in fact (or
actually) true. An argument is valid iff, supposing the premises are true,
the conclusion follows. In actuality the premises might be false. Consider an
example of a valid argument with actually false premises:
All dogs have eight legs.
The President is a dog.
Therefore, the President has eight legs.
The above argument is perfectly valid because we are assuming the truth of
the premises.
Valid arguments needn't be sound. A sound argument is valid and its premises
are actually true. The above argument, while valid, is clearly not sound
(i.e. dogs do not have eight legs and the president is not a dog). What makes
the argument valid is its form. Consider the following argument form.
All P are Q
A is P
Therefore, A is Q
The above is an argument form because the letters P, Q, A represent
unanalyzed or uninterpreted sentences. When we substitute P, Q, A for actual
sentences like those above about dogs and presidents, then we have an actual
argument instead of merely an argument form. We can determine the validity of
an actual argument by translating it into an argument form, and then
analyzing the argument form for validity. To determine the validity of an
argument form, usually we derive a proof of it. This rests on
well-established theorems proving that only valid formulas are provable and
only provable formulas are valid. Thus, if there is a proof of an argument
form, then we know it is valid. The proofs of these theorems establishing,
respectively, completeness and soundness are omitted here.
我是外系修這門課的,
查到一些有關於第四題的valid argument 的解釋
這段文字簡單來說就是 valid argument 其實只要看形式和是否結論有entail 前提
不用管實際的內容合不合理(見黃字)
合不合理似乎是 sound argument 探討的範圍,而valid argument 只看形式,
只要正確就合理.
如果有錯誤,麻煩大家糾正了
by the way, 黃字的論述跟4.f 的概念似乎差不多
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.245.159