Logical equivalence of ¬p→q
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.
I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.
propositional-calculus
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.
I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.
propositional-calculus
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.
I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.
propositional-calculus
Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.
I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.
propositional-calculus
propositional-calculus
edited Nov 11 at 18:41
Mutantoe
544411
544411
asked Nov 11 at 8:23
Jordan Solomons
197
197
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.
But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.
Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.
Thanks for confirming!
– Jordan Solomons
Nov 11 at 10:55
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.
In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.
But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.
Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.
Thanks for confirming!
– Jordan Solomons
Nov 11 at 10:55
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.
But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.
Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.
Thanks for confirming!
– Jordan Solomons
Nov 11 at 10:55
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.
But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.
Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.
As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.
But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.
Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.
answered Nov 11 at 8:49
Peter Smith
40.2k339118
40.2k339118
Thanks for confirming!
– Jordan Solomons
Nov 11 at 10:55
add a comment |
Thanks for confirming!
– Jordan Solomons
Nov 11 at 10:55
Thanks for confirming!
– Jordan Solomons
Nov 11 at 10:55
Thanks for confirming!
– Jordan Solomons
Nov 11 at 10:55
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.
In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.
In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.
In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.
You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.
In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.
answered Nov 11 at 8:34
MacRance
505
505
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.
As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.
answered Nov 11 at 8:32
Wuestenfux
2,6621410
2,6621410
add a comment |
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%2f2993594%2flogical-equivalence-of-%25c2%25acp%25e2%2586%2592q%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