I was thinking along the lines of the obvious, such as when found tautological the form must have been valid but I'm sure there is a more in-depth explanation that I can't reach.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Keelan, Philip Klöcking, James Kingsbery, Nick R, Alexander S King Feb 5 '16 at 19:27

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Could you please add some background information: What is the sentence form of an argument, what is a tautological sentence form? Can you give an example, thanks. – Jo Wehler Feb 1 '16 at 6:22

There's nothing deeper going on here. An argument, "P proves Q" is valid iff it is true for all assignments P,Q iff P-> Q is a logical truth, also known as a tautology

This does invoke soundness/completeness.

  • I just spoke to my AI and he said that what my professor really wanted was for me to prove that is was impossible to have a valid argument NOT be tautological. So basically show, in an example, that if you assume an argument to be valid and then assume that it is not tautological you will reach the conclusion that it is both invalid and valid when doing the a table, leading to the statement that "the sentence form of a valid argument must be tautological" because otherwise, the argument, which we said was valid, is actually invalid. She just wanted the reasoning behind it ig, thank you! – Maria Feb 1 '16 at 21:15
  • @noni have you figured that out? If not, can you provide your definitions of tautology and valid so I can explain? – Stella Biderman Feb 1 '16 at 21:19
  • yes, my AI explained it to me, thank you though! – Maria Feb 1 '16 at 21:29

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