Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In logic and mathematics, statements and are said to be logically equivalent if they have the same truth value in every model. [1] The logical equivalence of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} is sometimes expressed as p ≡ q {\displaystyle p\equiv q} , p :: q {\displaystyle p::q} , E p q {\displaystyle {\textsf {E}}pq} , or p q ...
The corresponding logical symbols are "", "", [6] and , [10] and sometimes "iff".These are usually treated as equivalent. However, some texts of mathematical logic (particularly those on first-order logic, rather than propositional logic) make a distinction between these, in which the first, ↔, is used as a symbol in logic formulas, while ⇔ is used in reasoning about those logic formulas ...
In propositional logic, material implication [1] [2] is a valid rule of replacement that allows a conditional statement to be replaced by a disjunction in which the antecedent is negated. The rule states that P implies Q is logically equivalent to not- P {\displaystyle P} or Q {\displaystyle Q} and that either form can replace the other in ...
This statement is said to be contraposed to the original and is logically equivalent to it. Due to their logical equivalence, stating one effectively states the other; when one is true, the other is also true, and when one is false, the other is also false. Strictly speaking, a contraposition can only exist in two simple conditionals.
A mathematical proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. The argument may use other previously established statements, such as theorems ; but every proof can, in principle, be constructed using only certain basic or original assumptions known as axioms ...
In logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements. For example, in the conditional statement: "If P then Q", Q is necessary for P, because the truth of Q is guaranteed by the truth of P.
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."
compound statement A statement in logic that is formed by combining two or more statements with logical connectives, allowing for the construction of more complex statements from simpler ones. [67] [68] comprehension schema A principle in set theory and logic allowing for the formation of sets based on a defining property or condition.