|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In [[logic]], the '''converse''' of a categorical or implicational statement is the result of reversing its two parts. For the [[Material conditional|implication]] ''P'' → ''Q'', the converse is ''Q'' → ''P''. For the [[categorical proposition]] ''All S is P'', the converse is ''All P is S''. In neither case does the converse [[logical consequence|necessarily follow]] from the original statement.<ref name="Audi">Robert Audi, ed. (1999), ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'', 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press: "converse".</ref> The categorical converse of a statement is contrasted with the [[contraposition|contrapositive]] and the [[obversion|obverse]].
| | If a child is going to burst, you should be worried. Like obese adults, overweight kids expose themselves to a great deal of health difficulties that threaten his existence and well-being. Obesity greatly reduces their standard of life and it's incumbent inside parents to confirm which they are protected.<br><br>No matter what you eat, constantly watch the part sizes. There is too much of a advantageous thing! Watch out for cream based soups plus sauces; instead try tomato-based because a healthy alternative. Fried foods are a big no-no, have the fish and meats baked or grilled! Instead of a baked dessert, have fresh fruit. As another superior direction, employ cooking spray instead of oils.<br><br>Don't worry regarding the non-integer exponent. Any off-the-shelf scientific calculator will handle it. I would not utilize the LI for clinical purposes--even though it's more fair than BMI.<br><br>So being the girl I am and having a have to learn form of mind, I found an online [http://safedietplansforwomen.com/bmi-calculator bmi calculator] and place in my numbers. After my friend Sally's experience I was sure that mine would at the least say I was at the high-end of normal. Oh however no, my online BMI outcome was which I was underweight. WTF? Again I know that everyone has their own perception of what is heavy and was is not but when I were to honestly judge where I think my fat could fall I would have said average, specifically with all the knowledge which Sally's returned on the high-end of obese.<br><br>Economist Giorrio Brunello within the University of Padova, Italy said which BMI affects wages negatively inside Europe. Moreover, the scale of the impact is larger for guys in comparison to women.<br><br>For a difference of opinion here is the book by Mark Hyman M.D., 8 Steps to Reversing Diabesity. It is easier to follow but I never recognize how powerful it is actually. As far as a healthy diet there is a truly standard direction. Dr. Oz states to eat foods that do not have an ingredient list.<br><br>In conclusion, DO NOT employ BMI because an accurate gauge for the weight, we could end up inside tears like Sally, trust anything more accurate like body fat percentage, or conversely, lean body mass. |
| | |
| ==Implicational converse==
| |
| ''S'' is a statement of the form ''P implies Q'' (''P'' → ''Q''), then the '''converse''' of ''S'' is the statement ''Q implies P'' (''Q'' → ''P''). In general, the verity of ''S'' says nothing about the verity of its converse, unless the [[Antecedent (logic)|antecedent]] ''P'' and the [[consequent]] ''Q'' are logically equivalent.
| |
| | |
| For example, consider the true statement "If I am a human, then I am mortal." The converse of that statement is "If I am mortal, then I am a human," which is not [[logical truth|necessarily true]].
| |
| | |
| On the other hand, the converse of a statement with mutually inclusive terms remains true, given the truth of the original proposition. Thus, the statement "If I am a bachelor, then I am an unmarried man" is logically equivalent to "If I am an unmarried man, then I am a bachelor."
| |
| | |
| A truth table makes it clear that ''S'' and the converse of ''S'' are not logically equivalent unless both terms imply each other:
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| ! ''P'' || ''Q'' || ''P'' → ''Q'' || ''Q'' → ''P'' (converse) | |
| |-
| |
| | T || T || T || T
| |
| |-
| |
| | T || F || F || T
| |
| |-
| |
| | F || T || T || F
| |
| |-
| |
| | F || F || T || T
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| Going from a statement to its converse is the fallacy of [[affirming the consequent]]''''' ''S'' and its converse are equivalent (i.e. if ''P'' is true [[iff|if and only if]] ''Q'' is also true), then affirming the consequent will be valid.
| |
| | |
| ===Converse of a theorem===
| |
| In mathematics, the converse of a theorem of the form ''P'' → ''Q'' will be ''Q'' → ''P''. The converse may or may not be true. If true, the proof may be difficult. For example, the [[Four-vertex theorem]] was proved in 1912, but its converse only in 1998.
| |
| | |
| In practice, when determining the converse of a mathematical theorem, aspects of the antecedent may be taken as establishing context. That is, the converse of ''Given P, if Q then R'' will be ''Given P, if R then Q''. For example, the [[Pythagorean theorem]] can be stated as:
| |
| | |
| <blockquote> | |
| '''Given''' a triangle with sides of length ''a'', ''b'', and ''c'', '''if''' the angle opposite the side of length ''c'' is a right angle, '''then''' '''''a''<sup>2</sup> + ''b''<sup>2</sup> = ''c''<sup>2</sup>.
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
| | |
| The converse, which also appears in [[Euclid's Elements|Euclid's ''Elements'']] (Book I, Proposition 48), can be stated as:
| |
| | |
| <blockquote> | |
| '''Given''' a triangle with sides of length ''a'', ''b'', and ''c'', '''if''' ''a''<sup>2</sup> + ''b''<sup>2</sup> = ''c''<sup>2</sup>, '''then''' the angle opposite the side of length ''c'' is a right angle.
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
| | |
| ==Categorical converse==
| |
| In traditional logic, the process of going from ''All S are P'' to its converse ''All P are S'' is called '''conversion'''. In the words of [[Asa Mahan]], "The original proposition is called the exposita; when converted, it is denominated the converse. Conversion is valid when, and only when, nothing is asserted in the converse which is not affirmed or implied in the exposita."<ref>Asa Mahan (1857), The Science of Logic: or, An Analysis of the Laws of Thought, [http://books.google.com/books?id=J_wtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA82 p. 82].</ref> The "exposita" is more usually called the "convertend." In its simple form, conversion is valid only for '''E''' and '''I''' propositions:<ref>William Thomas Parry and Edward A. Hacker (1991), ''Aristotelian Logic'', SUNY Press, [http://books.google.com/books?id=3Sg84H6B-m4C&pg=PA207 p. 207].</ref>
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| ! Type || Convertend || Simple converse || Converse ''per accidens''
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''A''' || All S are P || ''not valid'' || Some P is S
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''E''' || No S is P || No P is S || Some P is not S
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''I''' || Some S is P || Some P is S || –
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''O''' || Some S is not P || ''not valid'' || –
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| The validity of simple conversion only for '''E''' and '''I''' propositions can be expressed by the restriction that "No term must be distributed in the converse which is not distributed in the convertend."<ref>[[James H. Hyslop]] (1892), ''The Elements of Logic'', C. Scribner's sons, p. 156.</ref> For '''E''' propositions, both subject and predicate are [[Distribution of terms|distributed]], while for '''I''' propositions, neither is.
| |
| | |
| For '''A''' propositions, the subject is distributed while the predicate is not, and so the inference from an '''A''' statement to its converse is not valid. As an example, for the '''A''' proposition "All cats are mammals," the converse "All mammals are cats" is obviously false. However, the weaker statement "Some mammals are cats" is true. Logicians define conversion ''per accidens'' to be the process of producing this weaker statement. Inference from a statement to its converse ''per accidens'' is generally valid. However, as with [[syllogism]]s, this switch from the universal to the particular causes problems with empty categories: "All unicorns are mammals" is often taken as true, while the converse ''per accidens'' "Some mammals are unicorns" is clearly false.
| |
| | |
| In [[First-order logic|first-order predicate calculus]], ''All S are P'' can be represented as <math>\forall x. S(x) \to P(x)</math>.<ref>Gordon Hunnings (1988), ''The World and Language in Wittgenstein's Philosophy'', SUNY Press, [http://books.google.com/books?id=5XXz7B2PLRsC&pg=PA42 p. 42].</ref> It is therefore clear that the categorical converse is closely related to the implicational converse, and that ''S'' and ''P'' cannot be swapped in ''All S are P''.
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| {{Portal|Logic}}
| |
| {{col-begin}}
| |
| {{col-break}}
| |
| * [[Aristotle]]
| |
| * [[Contraposition]]
| |
| * [[Inference]]
| |
| * [[Obversion]]
| |
| * [[Syllogism]]
| |
| {{col-break}}
| |
| * [[Converse (semantics)]]
| |
| * [[Term logic]]
| |
| * [[Transposition (logic)]]
| |
| * [[Inverse (logic)]]
| |
| {{col-end}}
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| | |
| ==Further reading==
| |
| *[[Aristotle]]. ''Organon''.
| |
| *[[Irving Copi|Copi, Irving]]. ''Introduction to Logic''. MacMillan, 1953.
| |
| *Copi, Irving. ''Symbolic Logic''. MacMillan, 1979, fifth edition.
| |
| *[[Susan Stebbing|Stebbing, Susan]]. ''A Modern Introduction to Logic''. Cromwell Company, 1931.
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Immediate inference]]
| |
If a child is going to burst, you should be worried. Like obese adults, overweight kids expose themselves to a great deal of health difficulties that threaten his existence and well-being. Obesity greatly reduces their standard of life and it's incumbent inside parents to confirm which they are protected.
No matter what you eat, constantly watch the part sizes. There is too much of a advantageous thing! Watch out for cream based soups plus sauces; instead try tomato-based because a healthy alternative. Fried foods are a big no-no, have the fish and meats baked or grilled! Instead of a baked dessert, have fresh fruit. As another superior direction, employ cooking spray instead of oils.
Don't worry regarding the non-integer exponent. Any off-the-shelf scientific calculator will handle it. I would not utilize the LI for clinical purposes--even though it's more fair than BMI.
So being the girl I am and having a have to learn form of mind, I found an online bmi calculator and place in my numbers. After my friend Sally's experience I was sure that mine would at the least say I was at the high-end of normal. Oh however no, my online BMI outcome was which I was underweight. WTF? Again I know that everyone has their own perception of what is heavy and was is not but when I were to honestly judge where I think my fat could fall I would have said average, specifically with all the knowledge which Sally's returned on the high-end of obese.
Economist Giorrio Brunello within the University of Padova, Italy said which BMI affects wages negatively inside Europe. Moreover, the scale of the impact is larger for guys in comparison to women.
For a difference of opinion here is the book by Mark Hyman M.D., 8 Steps to Reversing Diabesity. It is easier to follow but I never recognize how powerful it is actually. As far as a healthy diet there is a truly standard direction. Dr. Oz states to eat foods that do not have an ingredient list.
In conclusion, DO NOT employ BMI because an accurate gauge for the weight, we could end up inside tears like Sally, trust anything more accurate like body fat percentage, or conversely, lean body mass.