数理逻辑学习笔记 lesson2(概念相关)-CSDN博客

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/ascrodia/article/details/113841170

logic_2 learning note

last update: 2021.2.8

Reasoning: What is it?

**definition: ** “The process by which one judgment is deduced from another or others which are given.” [The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2nd Edition]

reasoning as a process of drawing new conclusions(attention->must be new!!) from given premises, which are already known facts or previously assumed hypotheses to provide some evidence for the conclusions.

Relevant/Evidential relation between premises and conclusions

The premises of a reasoning are supposed to present evidence for the conclusions of that reasoning. !Though the premises of a reasoning are intended to provide some evidence for the conclusions of that reasoning, they need not actually do so.

Provided=>good/correct; Not provided=>bad/incorrect

Characteristic of reasoning

Good and bad reasoning(about a concrete reasoning)
Correct and incorrect reasoning(about a concrete reasoning)
Valid and invalid reasoning(about an abstract reasoning form)

reasoning is a set of arguments(??)

Proving: What is it?

Proving is the process of finding a justification for an explicitly specified statement from given premises, which are already known facts or previously assumed hypotheses.

A proof is a description of a found justification.

differences between reasoning and proving

Nature:
- reasoning is intrinsically prescriptive and predictive
- proving is intrinsically descriptive and non-predictive
Aim:
- reasoning is to find some new statement previously unknown or unrecognized
- proving is to find some statement previously known or assumed
goal
- proving has an explicitly specified target as its goal while reasoning does not.

Discovery: What is it?

definition: the action of uncovering or fact of becoming uncovered.

discovery and reasoning:

discovery must invoke reasoning:
- Reasoning is the only way to draw new conclusions from given premises.
discovery must be based on correct reasoning
- since any discovery process has no completely explicitly specified target, the only criterion the discovery process must act according to is to reason correct conclusions from the premises.

Prediction: What is it?

definition: prediction is the process to make some future event known in advance, especailly on the basis of special knowledge.

prediction and reasoning

just the same as discovery:

prediction must invoke reasoning
discovery must be based on correct reasoning

Inference: What is it?

definition: the same definition as conclusion

argument: What is it?

definition: A set of premises together with a conclusion is called an argument.

(argument can have mant premises, but it can only have a conclusion)

Statement:

A statement is an assertion that is either true or fasle and is typically expressed by a declarative sentence.(opposite to qustions, commmads, or exclamations)

Argument as a set of statements

$A = _{df}(P, c)$

where P is a set of statements(premises) and c is a statement(conclusion)

Argument as an evidential relation

In an argument, a claim is being made that there is some sort of evidential/inferential relationship between its premises and its conclusion : the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises, or equivalently, the premises are supposed to entail the conclusion.

deduction, induction and abduction (three forms of argument)

deduction

The process of deducing or drawing a conclusion from a principle already known or assumed; spec. in logic, inference by reasoning from generals to particulars; opposed to induction.

A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are intended to provide absolute support(evidence) for the conclusion. Its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises.

Ex. If A then B. A, therefore B.

(if the premises are all true, the conclusion must be true)

induction

The process of inferring a general law or principle from the observation of particular instances.

An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are intended to provide some degree of support (evidence) for the conclusion, i.e., its conclusion is not necessarily follows from its premises.

Ex. If A1 is a B, A2 is a B, …, An is a B, therefore maybe all An+1, An+2, …, are also B.

(The conclusion will be false, once a counter-example, An+k is NOT B, is found. )