logically imply - определение. Что такое logically imply
Diclib.com
Словарь ChatGPT
Введите слово или словосочетание на любом языке 👆
Язык:     

Перевод и анализ слов искусственным интеллектом ChatGPT

На этой странице Вы можете получить подробный анализ слова или словосочетания, произведенный с помощью лучшей на сегодняшний день технологии искусственного интеллекта:

  • как употребляется слово
  • частота употребления
  • используется оно чаще в устной или письменной речи
  • варианты перевода слова
  • примеры употребления (несколько фраз с переводом)
  • этимология

Что (кто) такое logically imply - определение

SOMETHING THAT IS LOGICAL POSSIBLE TO OCCUR
Logically possible; Logical impossibility; Logically impossible

Logical equivalence         
CONCEPT IN LOGIC
Logically equivalent; Logically equivolent; Logically equal; Equivalence (logic)
In logic and mathematics, statements p and q are said to be logically equivalent if they have the same truth value in every model. The logical equivalence of p and q is sometimes expressed as p \equiv q, p :: q, \textsf{E}pq, or p \iff q, depending on the notation being used.
Logical possibility         
Logical possibility refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule.
Correlation does not imply causation         
  • Dinosaur illiteracy and extinction may be correlated, but that would not mean the variables had a causal relationship.
PHRASE
Logical fallacy/Correlation implies causation; Correlation is not causation; Coorelation is not causation; Wrong direction; Wong direction; Cum hoc ergo propter hoc; Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc; Third-cause fallacy; Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy); Correlation is causation (fallacy); Correlation implies causation; Cum hoc ergo proptor hoc; Correlation causation; Cum hoc; Correlation does not prove causation; Correlation does not imply causality; Cum hoc propter hoc; Correlation does not mean causality; Correlation does not; Correlation and causation; Causation and correlation; Fallacy of ignoring a common cause; Correlation fallacy; Logical fallacy/Correlation does not imply causation; Correlation-causation fallacy; Association does not imply causation; Association does not equal causation; Reverse causation; Circular cause and consequence; Correlation, not causation; Correlation proves causation; Cum hoc non propter hoc; Correlation-causation; Corellation-causation; Correlation does not mean causation; Ignoring a common cause; Neglecting a common cause; Cause-correlation confusion; Correlation versus causation; Causation versus correlation; Correlation vs. causation; Third-variable fallacy; Causation fallacy; Correlation, not causality; Wrong Direction; Correlation vs causation; Correlation v. causation; Causation vs. correlation; Causation v. correlation; Causation vs correlation; Confusion of correlation and causation; Confusion of correlation with causation; Confusion of correlation for causation; Confusion of causation and correlation; Confusion of causation with correlation; Confusing correlation with causation; Confusing correlation and causation; Confusing correlation for causation; Confusing causation and correlation; Confusing causation with correlation; Correlation–causation fallacy; Cause-effect fallacy; Correlations do not imply causations; Correlation does not equal causation
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship.

Википедия

Logical possibility

Logical possibility refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values. Some assume the system in question is classical propositional logic. Similarly, the criterion for logical possibility is often based on whether or not a proposition is contradictory and as such, is often thought of as the broadest type of possibility.

In modal logic, a logical proposition is possible if it is true in some possible world. The universe of "possible worlds" depends upon the axioms and rules of the logical system in which one is working, but given some logical system, any logically consistent collection of statements is a possible world. The modal diamond operator {\displaystyle \lozenge } is used to express possibility: P {\displaystyle \lozenge P} denotes "proposition P {\displaystyle P} is possible".

Logical possibility is different from other sorts of subjunctive possibilities. The relationship between modalities (if there is any) is the subject of debate and may depend upon how one views logic, as well as the relationship between logic and metaphysics, for example, many philosophers following Saul Kripke have held that discovered identities such as "Hesperus = Phosphorus" are metaphysically necessary because they pick out the same object in all possible worlds where the terms have a referent. It is logically possible for “Hesperus = Phosphorus” to be false, since denying it does not violate a logical rule such as consistency. Other philosophers are of the view that logical possibility is broader than metaphysical possibility, so that anything which is metaphysically possible is also logically possible.