1
$\begingroup$

It may be a silly doubt but I am really confused about valid and invalid terms.

From whatever I read, I concluded that:

Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not to propositional statements. For a (simple)statement either it can be true or false. For arguments- It is valid if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Invalid when it is possible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

For a propositional formula (compound propositions) - a tautology, contingency, contradiction, satisfiable, unsatisfiable, valid terms make sense.

Now my confusion is:

  1. Can we use the $Invalid$ term with a compound proposition (propositional formula)? If yes, Then what is the condition for its invalidity?
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It certainly makes sense to have terminology to distinguish truth/falsity of propositional statements from validity/invalidity of arguments that purport to be logical reasoning. On the other hand it is very common for authors to use valid to describe a compound formula with assignments of truth and falsity to its atomic propositions when it results in the overall formula being true (resp. invalid when an assignment gives a false result).

Good authors will be careful in the use of terminology (and in the definitions), but informal usage will vary. Ultimately if you want to use the terms valid/invalid for compound propositions, you should provide consistent definitions that alert readers or listeners to your meaning.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. So usually authors use $valid$ terminology when a compound formula is a tautology and $invalid$ terminology when the truth table of formula contains $at least$ one $false$ ? $\endgroup$ – user9014873 Jul 20 '18 at 14:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd say careful authors use the term tautology when every truth-table assignment gives true and satisfiable when some truth-table assignment gives true. Even though the idea of truth-table assignments is clear and simple, from a computational complexity point of view this gives a non-polynomial time algorithm. However (for Boolean logic) the respective problems of deciding TAUT and SAT are convertible in polynomial time. I point this out mainly to motivate you to be articulate about your own definitions when using the term valid to refer to a compound formula. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jul 20 '18 at 14:45
1
$\begingroup$

Let’s first clear a terminological point.

Validity as in “this argument is valid” belongs to classic formal logic.

Validity as in “a tautology is a valid proposition” belongs to model theory.

That’s two meaning of valid. In mathematical logic we can talk about a valid proposition (in the 2nd sense of “valid”). Roughly it means true under any possible interpretation. A contradiction is the negation of a valid proposition. A contingent proposition is a neither valid nor a contradiction. Invalid means not valid, that is contradictory or contingent.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.