logically valid in a sentence

• Now it is easier to see what makes a formula logically valid.
• The ignorance fallacy is sometimes confused ( or combined ) with logically valid contrapositive arguments.
• They result in four kinds of opposing assertions, each of which is logically valid.
• This means that there is no decision procedure that determines whether arbitrary formulas are logically valid.
• Another thing is that you may be confusing what is logically valid with what is true.
• The latter may fail in spreadsheets not equipped to handle them but are nevertheless still logically valid.
• Conversely, a deductive system is "'complete "'if every logically valid formula is derivable.
• His arguments, though I at times disagree with them, are always logically valid, and always based on uncontrovertable fact.
• I just want to find out if my pro-life friend's statement is logically valid ( not logically fallacious ).
• A deductive system is "'sound "'if any formula that can be derived in the system is logically valid.
• It's difficult to see logically valid in a sentence .
• Each of these systems is sound, which means any sentence they can be used to prove is logically valid in the appropriate semantics.
• A converse to completeness is "'soundness, "'the fact that only logically valid formulas are provable in the deductive system.
• For example, propositional logic is decidable, because the truth-table method can be used to determine whether an arbitrary propositional formula is logically valid.
• A first-order formula is called "'soundness, "'the fact that only logically valid formulas are provable in the deductive system.
• The game was generally well received by critics, who praised the visuals and character art, but criticized the game for sometimes not accepting logically valid input during trials.
• A " reasonable " conclusion is one that is logically valid, or that can be reasonably inferred based on what is known about the situation at hand.
• Together with soundness ( whose verification is easy ), this theorem implies that a formula is logically valid if and only if it is the conclusion of a formal deduction.
• If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of  invalid reasoning is impossible to reach or apply.
• Averroes'position that the most logically valid proof should be physical rather than metaphysical ( because then metaphysics would be proving itself ) was in conscious opposition to the position of Avicenna.
• But, his point was logically valid about mainstream right-wing views of CM, and I had to do quite a bit of searching before coming down on the other side of that question.