Register to reply

Logic - clarification needed about implication

by autodidude
Tags: clarification, implication, logic
Share this thread:
Feb9-13, 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?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on
'Moral victories' might spare you from losing again
Fair cake cutting gets its own algorithm
Effort to model Facebook yields key to famous math problem (and a prize)
Feb9-13, 11:31 AM
P: 11,631
"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.
Feb9-13, 12:26 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 6,959
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.

Feb9-13, 12:54 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,169
Logic - clarification needed about implication

See the bottom half of :

i.e., the section on philosophical problems.


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