Changes

<translate>Any normal patient</translate> <math>\forall\text{x}

<translate>Any normal patient</translate> <math>\forall\text{x}

</math> <translate>who is positive on the radiographic examination of the TMJ</translate> <math>\mathrm{\mathcal{A}}(\text{x})</math>  [<translate>Figure</translate> 2 <translate>and</translate> 3] <translate>is affected by TMDs</translate> <math>\rightarrow\mathrm{\mathcal{B}}(\text{x})</math>; from this it follows that <math>\vdash</math> Mary Poppins being positive (and also being a "Normal" patient) on the TMJ x-ray <math>A(a)</math> then Mary Poppins is also affected by TMDs <math>\rightarrow \mathcal{B}(a)</math>

</math> <translate>who is positive on the radiographic examination of the TMJ</translate> <math>\mathrm{\mathcal{A}}(\text{x})</math>  [<translate>Figure</translate> 2 <translate>and</translate> 3] <translate>is affected by TMDs</translate> <math>\rightarrow\mathrm{\mathcal{B}}(\text{x})</math>; <translate>from this it follows that</translate> <math>\vdash</math> <translate>being Mary Poppins positive (and also being a "Normal" patient) on the TMJ x-ray</translate> <math>A(a)</math> <translate>then Mary Poppins is also affected by TMDs</translate> <math>\rightarrow \mathcal{B}(a)</math>

The language of predicates is expressed in the following way:

<translate>The language of predicates is expressed in the following way</translate>:

<math>\{a \in x \mid \forall \text{x} \; A(\text{x}) \rightarrow {B}(\text{x}) \vdash A( a)\rightarrow B(a) \}</math>.                                                       <math>(1)</math>

<math>\{a \in x \mid \forall \text{x} \; A(\text{x}) \rightarrow {B}(\text{x}) \vdash A( a)\rightarrow B(a) \}</math>. <math>(1)</math>

At this point it must also be considered that predicate logic is not used only to prove that a particular set of premises imply a particular evidence <math>(1)</math>. It is also used to prove that a particular assertion is not true or that a particular piece of knowledge is logically compatible or incompatible with a particular evidence.

<translate>At this point, it must also be considered that predicate logic is not used only to prove that a particular set of premises imply a particular evidence</translate> <math>(1)</math>. <translate>It is also used to prove that a particular assertion is not true, or that a particular piece of knowledge is logically compatible/incompatible with a particular evidence</translate>.

In order to prove that this proposition is true we must use the <u>demonstration by absurdity</u> mentioned above. If its denial creates a contradiction, surely the dentist's proposition will be true:

<translate>In order to prove that this proposition is true we must use the above mentioned</translate><u><translate>demonstration by absurdity</translate></u>. <translate>If its denial creates a contradiction, surely the dentist's proposition will be true</translate>:

<math>\urcorner\{a \in x \mid \forall \text{x} \; A(\text{x}) \rightarrow {B}(\text{x}) \vdash A( a)\rightarrow B(a) \}</math>.                         <math>(2)</math>

<math>\urcorner\{a \in x \mid \forall \text{x} \; A(\text{x}) \rightarrow {B}(\text{x}) \vdash A( a)\rightarrow B(a) \}</math>. <math>(2)</math>

Assumption <math>(2) </math> states that it is not true that those who test positive on TMJ CT have TMDs, so Mary Poppins (TMJ CT positive normal patient) does not have TMDs.

"<math>(2)</math>" <translate>states that it is not true that those who test positive on TMJ CT have TMDs, so Mary Poppins (TMJ CT positive normal patient) does not have TMDs</translate>.

The dentist believes that Mary Poppins' claim that she does not have TMD under these premises is a contradiction so the main claim is true.

<translate>The dentist believes that Mary Poppins' claim (that she does not have TMD under these premises) is a contradiction so the main claim is true</translate>.

===Neurophysiological proposition===

===Neurophysiological proposition===