Non sequitur: Another common fallacy is the non sequitur, in which someone takes premises and then forms a conclusion that the premises do not logically support.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

In the equation, a + b + x = c,  if a + b are the premises, and c is the conclusion, a + b  indeed support c; but fundamentally a +b doesn't lead to c.  The logical fallacy isn't correctly defined in our usage of non sequitur.  If we replace one term it would be correct: replace "support" with "establish," but then the Latin term must probably be changed too.

In other words, you can't form a conclusion on premises unless it be complete.  That's misleading.  You can confirm one premise, then another, etc.  It's never conclusive except the final premises equal the conclusion.

If the total premises equal the conclusion, it's established; not if the total premises support it.

Edited December 28, 20204 yr by Bartholomew Jones

Don’t overcomplicate it. It’s nonsequitur to suggest:  Bananas are yellow because dogs bark. Or, soil is nutrient rich because the mail gets delivered at lunchtime. That’s really it. One does not logically follow the other. 

Thanks for smudging a perfectly clear concept.

!

Moderator Note

Why is a thread about logic posted in applied math? It does not follow.

Moved.