Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The assertion that Q is necessary for P is colloquially equivalent to "P cannot be true unless Q is true" or "if Q is false, then P is false". [9] [1] By contraposition, this is the same thing as "whenever P is true, so is Q". The logical relation between P and Q is expressed as "if P, then Q" and denoted "P ⇒ Q" (P implies Q).
In the proposition "If P, then Q", the occurrence of P is sufficient reason for the occurrence of Q. P, as an individual or a class, materially implicates Q, but the relation of Q to P is such that the converse proposition "If Q, then P" does not necessarily have sufficient condition. The rule of inference for sufficient condition is modus ...
In most logical systems, one proves a statement of the form "P iff Q" by proving either "if P, then Q" and "if Q, then P", or "if P, then Q" and "if not-P, then not-Q". Proving these pairs of statements sometimes leads to a more natural proof, since there are not obvious conditions in which one would infer a biconditional directly.
If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q. The first premise is a conditional ("if–then") claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is an assertion that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is the case. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be the case as well.
Modus tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." 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.
A mixed hypothetical syllogism has two premises: one conditional statement and one statement that either affirms or denies the antecedent or consequent of that conditional statement. For example, If P, then Q. P. ∴ Q. In this example, the first premise is a conditional statement in which "P" is the antecedent and "Q" is the consequent.
Then if is true, that rules out the first disjunct, so we have . In short, P → Q {\displaystyle P\to Q} . [ 3 ] However, if P {\displaystyle P} is false, then this entailment fails, because the first disjunct ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} is true, which puts no constraint on the second disjunct Q {\displaystyle Q} .
In ordinary language terms, if both p and q are true, then the conjunction p ∧ q is true. For all other assignments of logical values to p and to q the conjunction p ∧ q is false. It can also be said that if p, then p ∧ q is q, otherwise p ∧ q is p.