Filtered
Filtered
They reported that homotus taxes got destroyed in the wreckage
The natives later renamed it
"The muhjooskike temple of soros trannyshills for a larp and memo"
False profit = false taxes
Das uber shill
Meh
Patton homosexuals of the rothschilds
Traitors and sodomites
Valor thieving cia judas fehgels
They play with zealots
"Das heutige Hogg ist der Speck von morgen"~A.Hitler
Black Dante loved Milk
Use the
fake news
To wipe your
backchannel
For
homotus 2020
Cocaine and pedovores !!!!!!!!
If Q
Then P
Then C
Not Q
Not P
Not C
In propositional logic, modus tollens (/ˈmoʊdəs ˈtɒlɛnz/; MT; also modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "mode that denies by denying")[1] or denying the consequent)[2] is a valid argument form and a rule of inference. It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contra-positive.
The inference rule modus tollens validates the inference from
P
P implies
Q
Q and the contradictory of
Q
Q to the contradictory of
P
P.
The modus tollens rule can be stated formally as:
P
→
Q
,
¬
Q
∴
¬
P
{\frac {P\to Q,\neg Q}{\therefore \neg P}}
where
P
→
Q
P\to Q stands for the statement "P implies Q".
¬
Q
\neg Q stands for "it is not the case that Q" (or in brief "not Q"). Then, whenever "
P
→
Q
P\to Q" and "
¬
Q
\neg Q" each appear by themselves as a line of a proof, then "
¬
P
\neg P" can validly be placed on a subsequent line. The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity.[3]
Modus tollens is closely related to modus ponens. There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. See also contraposition and proof by contrapositive.
The first to explicitly describe the argument form modus tollens was Theophrastus.[4]
>There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent
Swampwitchcanoe@yahoo.com
Fire in the hole