Mixing
Does (If not P then Q) imply (If P then Q)? My truth table says yes but I want verification
As the title says, is this true?
$$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$
The truth table is
begin{array}{rrrrrr}
P & Q & lnot P & lnot Q & lnot P to lnot Q & P to Q & (lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q) \ hline
T & T & F & F & T & T & T \
T & F & F & T & T & F & F \
F & T & T & F & F & T & T \
F & F & T & T & T & T & T \
end{array}
It seems like it's true from the table.
If it is true, is it true because $$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$ has the same truth table corresponding to the $to$ connective which is false only when the antecedent is T but the consequent is F?
Or is it true because the statement is true when the premises of $lnot P to lnot Q$ and $P to Q$ are true?
If it's not true, why not?
logic
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
add a comment |
As the title says, is this true?
$$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$
The truth table is
begin{array}{rrrrrr}
P & Q & lnot P & lnot Q & lnot P to lnot Q & P to Q & (lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q) \ hline
T & T & F & F & T & T & T \
T & F & F & T & T & F & F \
F & T & T & F & F & T & T \
F & F & T & T & T & T & T \
end{array}
It seems like it's true from the table.
If it is true, is it true because $$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$ has the same truth table corresponding to the $to$ connective which is false only when the antecedent is T but the consequent is F?
Or is it true because the statement is true when the premises of $lnot P to lnot Q$ and $P to Q$ are true?
If it's not true, why not?
logic
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
2
Why would it seem to you like it is true from the truth table? You have a F in the last column. That indicates that it is not a tautology.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:11
The title suggests the formula you want is $(neg Pto Q)to(Pto Q)$ not $(neg Ptoneg Q)to(Pto Q)$.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 21 '18 at 4:38
add a comment |
As the title says, is this true?
$$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$
The truth table is
begin{array}{rrrrrr}
P & Q & lnot P & lnot Q & lnot P to lnot Q & P to Q & (lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q) \ hline
T & T & F & F & T & T & T \
T & F & F & T & T & F & F \
F & T & T & F & F & T & T \
F & F & T & T & T & T & T \
end{array}
It seems like it's true from the table.
If it is true, is it true because $$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$ has the same truth table corresponding to the $to$ connective which is false only when the antecedent is T but the consequent is F?
Or is it true because the statement is true when the premises of $lnot P to lnot Q$ and $P to Q$ are true?
If it's not true, why not?
logic
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
As the title says, is this true?
$$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$
The truth table is
begin{array}{rrrrrr}
P & Q & lnot P & lnot Q & lnot P to lnot Q & P to Q & (lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q) \ hline
T & T & F & F & T & T & T \
T & F & F & T & T & F & F \
F & T & T & F & F & T & T \
F & F & T & T & T & T & T \
end{array}
It seems like it's true from the table.
If it is true, is it true because $$(lnot P to lnot Q) to (P to Q)$$ has the same truth table corresponding to the $to$ connective which is false only when the antecedent is T but the consequent is F?
Or is it true because the statement is true when the premises of $lnot P to lnot Q$ and $P to Q$ are true?
If it's not true, why not?
logic
logic
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:05
000
154
154
2
Why would it seem to you like it is true from the truth table? You have a F in the last column. That indicates that it is not a tautology.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:11
The title suggests the formula you want is $(neg Pto Q)to(Pto Q)$ not $(neg Ptoneg Q)to(Pto Q)$.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 21 '18 at 4:38
add a comment |
2
Why would it seem to you like it is true from the truth table? You have a F in the last column. That indicates that it is not a tautology.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:11
The title suggests the formula you want is $(neg Pto Q)to(Pto Q)$ not $(neg Ptoneg Q)to(Pto Q)$.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 21 '18 at 4:38
2
2
Why would it seem to you like it is true from the truth table? You have a F in the last column. That indicates that it is not a tautology.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:11
Why would it seem to you like it is true from the truth table? You have a F in the last column. That indicates that it is not a tautology.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:11
The title suggests the formula you want is $(neg Pto Q)to(Pto Q)$ not $(neg Ptoneg Q)to(Pto Q)$.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 21 '18 at 4:38
The title suggests the formula you want is $(neg Pto Q)to(Pto Q)$ not $(neg Ptoneg Q)to(Pto Q)$.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 21 '18 at 4:38
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$ is not a tautology because it is not true when $P$ is true but $Q$ is false. That is shown in the second row of your truth table.
Likewise, it is not a contradiction. The statement is conditionally true.
The statement is logically equivalent to $lnot(Plandlnot Q)$, also to $(lnot Plor Q)$.
Now $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Qto P)$ is a tautology in classical logic. Notice the order of the terms.
Indeed $lnot Pto lnot Q$ is the contrapositive of $Qto P$, and the two are logically equivalent.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
Is it conditionally true because (¬P→¬Q) is a premise and (P→Q) is a conclusion, and the conclusion is false when the premise is true when P is true and Q is false? In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) itself i.e. I can remove the last column and be able to evaluate the truth table
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:27
"In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of $(neg Pto neg Q)to (Pto Q)$ itself", except that truth is defined exactly by the result of valuations.
– Git Gud
Nov 20 '18 at 22:29
@GitGud Ok so the last column is necessary because it gives us the final statement to evaluate it's truthfulness correct?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
I have a question. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
@000 We say $lnot Ptolnot Q$ is the antecedant, and $Pto Q$ is the consequent, of the statement $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$. Premise and conclusion reference parts of a logical argument.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
|
show 2 more comments
No, if we have a statement "$P$ then $Q$", then "$neg P$ then $neg Q$" is the inverse of the statement. The inverse being true does not imply the statement is true.
For instance consider a class where the cutoff for an $A$ is $90%$. Consider the statement $$
text{"If you have above an }80%text{, then you will receive an }Atext{."}
$$
This statement is not true. However its inverse is true.
$$
text{"If you do not have above an }80%text{, then you will not receive an }Atext{."}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
Thank you. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
($neg Prightarrow neg Q$) is the premise or hypothesis and ($Prightarrow Q$) is the conclusion.
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006966%2fdoes-if-not-p-then-q-imply-if-p-then-q-my-truth-table-says-yes-but-i-want-v%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$ is not a tautology because it is not true when $P$ is true but $Q$ is false. That is shown in the second row of your truth table.
Likewise, it is not a contradiction. The statement is conditionally true.
The statement is logically equivalent to $lnot(Plandlnot Q)$, also to $(lnot Plor Q)$.
Now $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Qto P)$ is a tautology in classical logic. Notice the order of the terms.
Indeed $lnot Pto lnot Q$ is the contrapositive of $Qto P$, and the two are logically equivalent.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
Is it conditionally true because (¬P→¬Q) is a premise and (P→Q) is a conclusion, and the conclusion is false when the premise is true when P is true and Q is false? In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) itself i.e. I can remove the last column and be able to evaluate the truth table
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:27
"In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of $(neg Pto neg Q)to (Pto Q)$ itself", except that truth is defined exactly by the result of valuations.
– Git Gud
Nov 20 '18 at 22:29
@GitGud Ok so the last column is necessary because it gives us the final statement to evaluate it's truthfulness correct?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
I have a question. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
@000 We say $lnot Ptolnot Q$ is the antecedant, and $Pto Q$ is the consequent, of the statement $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$. Premise and conclusion reference parts of a logical argument.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
|
show 2 more comments
$(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$ is not a tautology because it is not true when $P$ is true but $Q$ is false. That is shown in the second row of your truth table.
Likewise, it is not a contradiction. The statement is conditionally true.
The statement is logically equivalent to $lnot(Plandlnot Q)$, also to $(lnot Plor Q)$.
Now $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Qto P)$ is a tautology in classical logic. Notice the order of the terms.
Indeed $lnot Pto lnot Q$ is the contrapositive of $Qto P$, and the two are logically equivalent.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
Is it conditionally true because (¬P→¬Q) is a premise and (P→Q) is a conclusion, and the conclusion is false when the premise is true when P is true and Q is false? In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) itself i.e. I can remove the last column and be able to evaluate the truth table
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:27
"In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of $(neg Pto neg Q)to (Pto Q)$ itself", except that truth is defined exactly by the result of valuations.
– Git Gud
Nov 20 '18 at 22:29
@GitGud Ok so the last column is necessary because it gives us the final statement to evaluate it's truthfulness correct?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
I have a question. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
@000 We say $lnot Ptolnot Q$ is the antecedant, and $Pto Q$ is the consequent, of the statement $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$. Premise and conclusion reference parts of a logical argument.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
|
show 2 more comments
$(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$ is not a tautology because it is not true when $P$ is true but $Q$ is false. That is shown in the second row of your truth table.
Likewise, it is not a contradiction. The statement is conditionally true.
The statement is logically equivalent to $lnot(Plandlnot Q)$, also to $(lnot Plor Q)$.
Now $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Qto P)$ is a tautology in classical logic. Notice the order of the terms.
Indeed $lnot Pto lnot Q$ is the contrapositive of $Qto P$, and the two are logically equivalent.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
$(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$ is not a tautology because it is not true when $P$ is true but $Q$ is false. That is shown in the second row of your truth table.
Likewise, it is not a contradiction. The statement is conditionally true.
The statement is logically equivalent to $lnot(Plandlnot Q)$, also to $(lnot Plor Q)$.
Now $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Qto P)$ is a tautology in classical logic. Notice the order of the terms.
Indeed $lnot Pto lnot Q$ is the contrapositive of $Qto P$, and the two are logically equivalent.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
edited Nov 20 '18 at 22:20
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
84.7k43378
Is it conditionally true because (¬P→¬Q) is a premise and (P→Q) is a conclusion, and the conclusion is false when the premise is true when P is true and Q is false? In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) itself i.e. I can remove the last column and be able to evaluate the truth table
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:27
"In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of $(neg Pto neg Q)to (Pto Q)$ itself", except that truth is defined exactly by the result of valuations.
– Git Gud
Nov 20 '18 at 22:29
@GitGud Ok so the last column is necessary because it gives us the final statement to evaluate it's truthfulness correct?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
I have a question. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
@000 We say $lnot Ptolnot Q$ is the antecedant, and $Pto Q$ is the consequent, of the statement $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$. Premise and conclusion reference parts of a logical argument.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
|
show 2 more comments
Is it conditionally true because (¬P→¬Q) is a premise and (P→Q) is a conclusion, and the conclusion is false when the premise is true when P is true and Q is false? In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) itself i.e. I can remove the last column and be able to evaluate the truth table
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:27
"In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of $(neg Pto neg Q)to (Pto Q)$ itself", except that truth is defined exactly by the result of valuations.
– Git Gud
Nov 20 '18 at 22:29
@GitGud Ok so the last column is necessary because it gives us the final statement to evaluate it's truthfulness correct?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
I have a question. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
@000 We say $lnot Ptolnot Q$ is the antecedant, and $Pto Q$ is the consequent, of the statement $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$. Premise and conclusion reference parts of a logical argument.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
Is it conditionally true because (¬P→¬Q) is a premise and (P→Q) is a conclusion, and the conclusion is false when the premise is true when P is true and Q is false? In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) itself i.e. I can remove the last column and be able to evaluate the truth table
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:27
Is it conditionally true because (¬P→¬Q) is a premise and (P→Q) is a conclusion, and the conclusion is false when the premise is true when P is true and Q is false? In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) itself i.e. I can remove the last column and be able to evaluate the truth table
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:27
"In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of $(neg Pto neg Q)to (Pto Q)$ itself", except that truth is defined exactly by the result of valuations.
– Git Gud
Nov 20 '18 at 22:29
"In other words whether this statement is true or not doesn't have anything to do with the evaluation of $(neg Pto neg Q)to (Pto Q)$ itself", except that truth is defined exactly by the result of valuations.
– Git Gud
Nov 20 '18 at 22:29
@GitGud Ok so the last column is necessary because it gives us the final statement to evaluate it's truthfulness correct?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
@GitGud Ok so the last column is necessary because it gives us the final statement to evaluate it's truthfulness correct?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
I have a question. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
I have a question. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
@000 We say $lnot Ptolnot Q$ is the antecedant, and $Pto Q$ is the consequent, of the statement $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$. Premise and conclusion reference parts of a logical argument.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
@000 We say $lnot Ptolnot Q$ is the antecedant, and $Pto Q$ is the consequent, of the statement $(lnot Ptolnot Q)to(Pto Q)$. Premise and conclusion reference parts of a logical argument.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
|
show 2 more comments
No, if we have a statement "$P$ then $Q$", then "$neg P$ then $neg Q$" is the inverse of the statement. The inverse being true does not imply the statement is true.
For instance consider a class where the cutoff for an $A$ is $90%$. Consider the statement $$
text{"If you have above an }80%text{, then you will receive an }Atext{."}
$$
This statement is not true. However its inverse is true.
$$
text{"If you do not have above an }80%text{, then you will not receive an }Atext{."}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
Thank you. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
($neg Prightarrow neg Q$) is the premise or hypothesis and ($Prightarrow Q$) is the conclusion.
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
add a comment |
No, if we have a statement "$P$ then $Q$", then "$neg P$ then $neg Q$" is the inverse of the statement. The inverse being true does not imply the statement is true.
For instance consider a class where the cutoff for an $A$ is $90%$. Consider the statement $$
text{"If you have above an }80%text{, then you will receive an }Atext{."}
$$
This statement is not true. However its inverse is true.
$$
text{"If you do not have above an }80%text{, then you will not receive an }Atext{."}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
Thank you. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
($neg Prightarrow neg Q$) is the premise or hypothesis and ($Prightarrow Q$) is the conclusion.
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
add a comment |
No, if we have a statement "$P$ then $Q$", then "$neg P$ then $neg Q$" is the inverse of the statement. The inverse being true does not imply the statement is true.
For instance consider a class where the cutoff for an $A$ is $90%$. Consider the statement $$
text{"If you have above an }80%text{, then you will receive an }Atext{."}
$$
This statement is not true. However its inverse is true.
$$
text{"If you do not have above an }80%text{, then you will not receive an }Atext{."}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
No, if we have a statement "$P$ then $Q$", then "$neg P$ then $neg Q$" is the inverse of the statement. The inverse being true does not imply the statement is true.
For instance consider a class where the cutoff for an $A$ is $90%$. Consider the statement $$
text{"If you have above an }80%text{, then you will receive an }Atext{."}
$$
This statement is not true. However its inverse is true.
$$
text{"If you do not have above an }80%text{, then you will not receive an }Atext{."}
$$
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
answered Nov 20 '18 at 22:14
Joey Kilpatrick
1,181422
1,181422
Thank you. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
($neg Prightarrow neg Q$) is the premise or hypothesis and ($Prightarrow Q$) is the conclusion.
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
add a comment |
Thank you. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
($neg Prightarrow neg Q$) is the premise or hypothesis and ($Prightarrow Q$) is the conclusion.
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
Thank you. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
Thank you. Is (¬P→¬Q) the premise and (P→Q) the conclusion? Or are they both premises with (¬P→¬Q)→(P→Q) as the conclusion?
– 000
Nov 20 '18 at 22:40
($neg Prightarrow neg Q$) is the premise or hypothesis and ($Prightarrow Q$) is the conclusion.
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
($neg Prightarrow neg Q$) is the premise or hypothesis and ($Prightarrow Q$) is the conclusion.
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 20 '18 at 22:42
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006966%2fdoes-if-not-p-then-q-imply-if-p-then-q-my-truth-table-says-yes-but-i-want-v%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Why would it seem to you like it is true from the truth table? You have a F in the last column. That indicates that it is not a tautology.
– Graham Kemp
Nov 20 '18 at 22:11
The title suggests the formula you want is $(neg Pto Q)to(Pto Q)$ not $(neg Ptoneg Q)to(Pto Q)$.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 21 '18 at 4:38