## Logic - clarification needed about implication

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?
 PhysOrg.com mathematics news on PhysOrg.com >> Pendulum swings back on 350-year-old mathematical mystery>> Bayesian statistics theorem holds its own - but use with caution>> Math technique de-clutters cancer-cell data, revealing tumor evolution, treatment leads
 Mentor "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.
 Recognitions: Science Advisor 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.

Recognitions:

## 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

 Similar discussions for: Logic - clarification needed about implication Thread Forum Replies Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 14 Calculus & Beyond Homework 12 General Math 11 General Discussion 4 Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework 0