Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
These examples, one from mathematics and one from natural language, illustrate the concept of vacuous truths: "For any integer x, if x > 5 then x > 3." [11] – This statement is true non-vacuously (since some integers are indeed greater than 5), but some of its implications are only vacuously true: for example, when x is the integer 2, the statement implies the vacuous truth that "if 2 > 5 ...
material conditional (material implication) implies, if P then Q, it is not the case that P and not Q propositional logic, Boolean algebra, Heyting algebra: is false when A is true and B is false but true otherwise.
The logical NAND is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of false if both of its operands are true. In other words, it produces a value of true if at least one of its operands is false. The truth table for p NAND q (also written as p ↑ q, Dpq, or p | q) is as follows:
We assume P to be false, i.e., we assume ¬P. It is then shown that ¬P implies falsehood. This is typically accomplished by deriving two mutually contradictory assertions, Q and ¬Q, and appealing to the law of noncontradiction. Since assuming P to be false leads to a contradiction, it is concluded that P is in fact true.
For example, even though material conditionals with false antecedents are vacuously true, the natural language statement "If 8 is odd, then 3 is prime" is typically judged false. Similarly, any material conditional with a true consequent is itself true, but speakers typically reject sentences such as "If I have a penny in my pocket, then Paris ...
It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument. The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity. [4]
If P is sufficient for Q, then knowing P to be true is adequate grounds to conclude that Q is true; however, knowing P to be false does not meet a minimal need to conclude that Q is false. The logical relation is, as before, expressed as "if P, then Q" or "P ⇒ Q". This can also be expressed as "P only if Q", "P implies Q" or several other ...
Let S be a statement of the form P implies Q (P → Q). Then the converse of S is the statement Q implies P (Q → P). In general, the truth of S says nothing about the truth of its converse, [2] unless the antecedent P and the consequent Q are logically equivalent. For example, consider the true statement "If I am a human, then I am mortal."