DEDUCTION

PRESENTED TO
MADAM FOZIA
PRESENTED BY
MOAZAM IFTIKHAR
DEDUCTION
 Inmathematical logic, natural deduction is an
approach to proof theory that attempts to
provide a formal model of logical reasoning
as it "naturally" occurs.
Arguments and Logic
 Philosophy is based on critical thinking. Critical thinking simply
means that you assume any and every claim is false unless and
until it’s proven true. To get a critical thinker to agree that your
claim is true, you need to provide evidence for that claim. The
claim and its supporting evidence constitute an argument. Every
argument has premises and a conclusion. The conclusion is the
claim that the argument is trying to prove; the premises are the
supporting evidence.
 There are two general types of arguments: deduction and
induction. They differ in their concepts of “proof”, the kinds of
evidence they allow, and the strength of their conclusions
MOTIVATION
 Natural deduction grew out of a context of
dissatisfaction with sentential axiomatizations
common to the systems of Hilbert, Frege, and
Russell (see e.g. Hilbert-style deduction
system). Such axiomatizations were most
famously used by Russell and Whitehead in
their mathematical treatise Principia
Mathematica.
Judgments and propositions

A judgment is something that is knowable, that is,

an object of knowledge. It is evident if one in fact
knows it. Thus "it is raining" is a judgment, which is
evident for the one who knows that it is actually
raining; in this case one may readily find evidence
for the judgment by looking outside the window or
stepping out of the house. In mathematical logic
however, evidence is often not as directly
observable, but rather deduced from more basic
evident judgments. The process of deduction is
what constitutes a proof; in other words, a judgment
is evident if one has a proof for it.
Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in
which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached
from, previously known facts (the premises). If the
premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This
is distinguished from abductive and inductive
reasoning, where the premises may predict a high
probability of the conclusion, but do not ensure that
the conclusion is true. For instance, beginning with
the premises "sharks are fish" and "all fish have
fins", you may conclude that "sharks have fins".
Deductive argument
A deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that it is
impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false.
Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and
inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of
the truth of the claim (conclusion).
Example:
 All birds have feathers,
 Socrates has no feathers,
 Therefore Socrates is no bird.

In symbols, this is:

A→B,
not B,
not A.
Example of a simple syllogism
Premise 1: All left-handed people are short.
(All X are Y).
Premise 2: waseem is left-handed.
(A is X).
Conclusion: waseem is short.
(A is Y).
Example of a simple syllogism
 Premises provide the evidence or reasons upon
which a conclusion is based.
 We can thus define a 'conclusion' as a statement
that is asserted to be true on the basis of the
premises of the argument.
 However, the terms 'premise' and 'conclusion' are
relative terms. That is, a conclusion from one
argument can become the premise of other
arguments. Alternatively, a statement can be a
premise in one argument and a conclusion of
another.
Consistency, completeness, and
normal forms
A theory is said to be consistent if falsehood is not provable
(from no assumptions) and is complete if every theorem is
provable using the inference rules of the logic. These are
statements about the entire logic, and are usually tied to some
notion of a model. However, there are local notions of
consistency and completeness that are purely syntactic checks
on the inference rules, and require no appeals to models. The
first of these is local consistency, also known as local reducibility,
which says that any derivation containing an introduction of a
connective followed immediately by its elimination can be turned
into an equivalent derivation without this detour. It is a check on
the strength of elimination rules: they must not be so strong that
they include knowledge not already contained in its premisses.
As an example, consider conjunctions.
Philosophical point of view:
Distinction in logic between types of
reasoning, arguments, or inferences. In a
deductive argument, the truth of the
premises is supposed to guarantee the truth
of the conclusion; in an inductive argument,
the truth of the premises merely makes it
probable that the conclusion is true.
THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION

I THANX ALL OF U FOR PAYING ATTENTION

THANKYOU