Nuestro Ryan M.

BSIE

1. Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive
arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of
premises. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the
conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its
premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but are never false nor true.
Deductive reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge. An example of a deductive argument:

All people are mortal

Socrates is a person
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The first premise states that all objects classified as 'people' have the attribute 'mortal'. The second premise
states that 'Socrates' is classified as a person - a member of the set 'people'. The conclusion states that
'Socrates' must be mortal because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a person. Deductive
reasoning is sometimes contrasted with inductive reasoning.

2. Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, or educated guess in colloquial English, is
a kind of reasoning that draws generalized conclusions from a finite collection of specific observations. The
premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the
conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

Induction is employed, for example, in the following argument:

Every life form we know of depends on liquid water to exist. (Specific observations)
All life depends on liquid water to exist. (Generalized conclusion)
Inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even where all of the premises are
true. For example:

All of the swans we have seen are white.

All swans are white. (Only if we disregard Black Swans)

Note that this definition of inductive reasoning excludes mathematical induction, which is considered to be a
form of deductive reasoning.

3. A formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a
formal language) each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule
of inference. The last sentence in the sequence is a theorem of a formal system. The notion of theorem is not
in general effective, therefore there may be no method by which we can always find a proof of a given
sentence or determine that none exists. The concept of natural deduction is a generalization of the concept of
proof.

The theorem is a syntactic consequence of all the well-formed formulas preceding it in the proof. For a well-
formed formula to qualify as part of a proof, it must be the result of applying a rule of the deductive apparatus
of some formal system to the previous well-formed formula in the proof sequence.

Formal proofs often are constructed with the help of computers in interactive theorem proving. Significantly,
these proofs can be checked automatically, also by computer. Checking formal proofs is usually simple, while
the problem of finding proofs (automated theorem proving) is usually computationally intractable and/or only
semi-decidable, depending upon the formal system in use.

4.In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that
some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than
from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases,
without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.

The statement that is proved is often called a theorem. Once a theorem is proved, it can be used as the basis
to prove further statements. A theorem may also be referred to as a lemma, especially if it is intended for use
as a stepping stone in the proof of another theorem.

Proofs employ logic but usually include some amount of natural language which usually admits some
ambiguity. In fact, the vast majority of proofs in written mathematics can be considered as applications of
rigorous informal logic. Purely formal proofs, written in symbolic language instead of natural language, are
considered in proof theory. The distinction between formal and informal proofs has led to much examination of
current and historical mathematical practice, quasi-empiricism in mathematics, and so-called folk mathematics
(in both senses of that term). The philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the role of language and logic
in proofs, and mathematics as a language.

5. A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") or logical appeal is a kind of

logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a
certain form, i.e. categorical proposition.

In Prior Analytics, Aristotle defines syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed,
something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." (24b18–20)

Despite this very general definition, he limits himself first to categorical syllogisms (and later to modal
syllogisms). The syllogism was at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by
combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated
observations. The syllogism was superseded by first-order predicate logic following the work of Gottlob Frege,
in particular his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script)(1879).

For example:

Major premise: All men are mortal..

Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

6. In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established
statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms. The derivation of a
theorem is often interpreted as a proof of the truth of the resulting expression, but different deductive systems
can yield other interpretations, depending on the meanings of the derivation rules. Theorems have two
components, called the hypotheses and the conclusions. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical
argument demonstrating that the conclusions are a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, in the sense
that if the hypotheses are true then the conclusions must also be true, without any further assumptions. The
concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which
is empirical.

7. A conditional proof is a proof that takes the form of asserting a conditional, and proving that the
antecedent of the conditional necessarily leads to the consequent.

The assumed antecedent of a conditional proof is called the conditional proof assumption (CPA). Thus, the
goal of a conditional proof is to demonstrate that if the CPA were true, then the desired conclusion necessarily
follows. Note that the validity of a conditional proof does not require that the CPA is actually true, only that if it
is true it leads to the consequent.

Conditional proofs are of great importance in mathematics. Conditional proofs exist linking several otherwise
unproven conjectures, so that a proof of one conjecture may immediately imply the validity of several others. It
can be much easier to show a proposition's truth to follow from another proposition than to prove it
independently.

A famous network of conditional proofs is the NP-complete class of complexity theory. There are a large
number of interesting tasks, and while it is not known if a polynomial-time solution exists for any of them, it is
known that if such a solution exists for any of them, one exists for all of them.

Likewise, the Riemann hypothesis has a large number of consequences already proven.

8. In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the
premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. Aristotle held
that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. Premises are sometimes left
unstated in which case they are called missing premises, for example:

Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal.

It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:

Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and
"Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.

The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.

9. A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable
phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to
suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one
can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily
be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often
used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific
theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.

In a related but distinguishable usage, the term hypothesis is used for the antecedent of a proposition; thus in
proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the
assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question.

The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis," or "being assumed to exist as an
immediate consequence of a hypothesis," can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis."

10. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical
syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.

For example:

No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly.
The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things that are not fish cannot fly,
provided that dogs exist.

Or:

We don't read that trash. People who read that trash don't appreciate real literature. Therefore, we appreciate
real literature.
This could be illustrated mathematically as

If A ⊄ B and B ⊄ C then A ⊂ C.
It is a fallacy because any valid forms of categorical syllogism that assert a negative premise must have a
negative conclusion.

11. In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known
as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the
conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the
premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises.
Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid if and only if the truth
of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is
a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

Each premise and the conclusion are only either true or false, i.e. are truth bearers. The sentences composing
an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; deductive arguments are
referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false. Some authors refer to the premises and
conclusion using the terms declarative sentence, statement, proposition, sentence, or even indicative
utterance. The reason for the variety is concern about the ontological significance of the terms, proposition in
particular. Whichever term is used, each premise and the conclusion must be capable of being true or false
and nothing else: they are truthbearers.

12. In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by
showing that the proposition being false would imply a contradiction. Since by the law of bivalence a
proposition must be either true or false, and its falsity has been shown impossible, the proposition must be
true.

In other words, to prove by contradiction that P, show that or its equivalent . Then, since implies a
contradiction, conclude P.

Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile. It is a
particular kind of the more general form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.

A classic proof by contradiction from mathematics is the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational. If it were
rational, it could be expressed as a fraction a/b in lowest terms, where a and b are integers, at least one of
which is odd. But if a/b = √2, then a2 = 2b2. Therefore a2 must be even. Because the square of an odd
number is odd, that in turn implies that a is even. This means that b must be odd because a/b is in lowest
terms.

On the other hand, if a is even, then a2 is a multiple of 4. If a2 is a multiple of 4 and a2 = 2b2, then 2b2 is a
multiple of 4, and therefore b2 is even, and so is b.

So b is odd and even, a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption—that √2 can be expressed as a fraction
—must be false.
13. Scientific notation, also known as standard form or as exponential notation, is a way of writing numbers
that accommodates values too large or small to be conveniently written in standard decimal notation. Scientific
notation has a number of useful properties and is commonly used in calculators, and by scientists,
mathematicians, doctors, and engineers.

In scientific notation all numbers are written like this:

a × 10b
("a times ten to the power of b"), where the exponent b is an integer, and the coefficient a is any real number
(but see normalized notation below), called the significand or mantissa (though the term "mantissa" may cause
confusion as it can also refer to the fractional part of the common logarithm). If the number is negative then a
minus sign precedes a (as in ordinary decimal notation).