- #1
bentley4
- 66
- 0
Hi everyone,
I was thinking about logic and proofs and I concluded that "proving the negation of the converse of an implication to be true" proves "the implication to be true". But strangely I can't find any information about this proof method, so I doubt if I am correct.
Just to be clear, here is an example:
Implication: "I am human" implies that "I am an animal".
Negation of the converse: "I am an animal" does not imply that "I am human".
So, is my reasoning flawed here?
I was thinking about logic and proofs and I concluded that "proving the negation of the converse of an implication to be true" proves "the implication to be true". But strangely I can't find any information about this proof method, so I doubt if I am correct.
Just to be clear, here is an example:
Implication: "I am human" implies that "I am an animal".
Negation of the converse: "I am an animal" does not imply that "I am human".
So, is my reasoning flawed here?