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).
The rule states that P implies Q is logically equivalent to not-or and that either form can replace the other in logical proofs. In other words, if P {\displaystyle P} is true, then Q {\displaystyle Q} must also be true, while if Q {\displaystyle Q} is not true, then P {\displaystyle P} cannot be true either; additionally, when P {\displaystyle ...
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 ponens, which is an argument for conditional implication: Premise (1): If P, then Q; Premise (2): P
Implication alone is not functionally complete as a logical operator because one cannot form all other two-valued truth functions from it.. For example, the two-place truth function that always returns false is not definable from → and arbitrary propositional variables: any formula constructed from → and propositional variables must receive the value true when all of its variables are ...
In writing, phrases commonly used as alternatives to P "if and only if" Q include: Q is necessary and sufficient for P, for P it is necessary and sufficient that Q, P is equivalent (or materially equivalent) to Q (compare with material implication), P precisely if Q, P precisely (or exactly) when Q, P exactly in case Q, and P just in case Q. [3]
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.
The proposition to be proved is P. 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 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.