Register to reply 
Logic  clarification needed about implication 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb913, 10:47 AM

P: 333

If P→Q, and P is false but Q is true, then why is P→Q true? To me, it seems as though we shouldn't be able to do proceed because there isn't enough information. Same goes when P and Q are both false, how does that suggest P→Q is true?



#2
Feb913, 11:31 AM

Mentor
P: 11,573

"If it rains, the street gets wet"
This statement is true, even if I spill water on the street (without rain). More general: It cannot be false, if it does not rain. It just does not give any information about the street in that case. 


#3
Feb913, 12:26 PM

Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 6,921

Another reason for those definitions is so that logic "works" the way it should, for every combination of "true" and "false".
For example, "P implies Q" means the same (in ordinary English) as "if P is true, then Q is true", which means the same as "if Q is false, then P is false". So the truth table for P→Q must be the same as for (not Q)→(not P), That means P→Q must be defined as true, when P and Q are both false. You can create a similar argument to show how P→Q must be defined with P is false and Q is true. 


#4
Feb913, 12:54 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,169

Logic  clarification needed about implication
See the bottom half of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional i.e., the section on philosophical problems. And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_conditional 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
A question about implication in logic  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  14  
Clarification needed  Calculus & Beyond Homework  12  
Implication (Discrete math logic)  General Math  11  
LOGIC: A Request for Clarification of definitions  General Discussion  4  
Predicate logic implication and quantifiers  Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework  0 