Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B About mathematical logic

  1. Jan 5, 2017 #1
    When P -> Q, why is it true when P is false and Q is true, but why is it false when P is true and Q is false?

    If I suppose P mean "Jon is a guy" and Q mean "Mary is a girl". When both P and Q are true it does make sense that this proposition is true because Jon is a guy and Mary is a girl, but when it come to the second and third agreement, where P is false but Q is true still make the proposition true, but the Proposition is a false when P is true and Q is false. I tried replacing P and Q with "Jon is a guy" and "Mary is a girl". And it doesn't make sense why do one of them is right and the another one is wrong?

    I believe this is not a smart question, but if there's anyone forgo their time to explain this I would be really appreciate.
    Thank you very much.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 5, 2017 #2

    Andrew Mason

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    P -> Q means: If P is true then Q is true. So if P is true and Q is false, the statement is not correct (ie. P being true does not imply that Q is also true).

    P->Q does not mean: If Q is true then P is true. It does not say what P is if Q is true.

  4. Jan 6, 2017 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    In propositional calculus, [itex]P\Rightarrow Q [/itex] is defined as [itex]Q \vee (\neg P) = \neg (\neg Q \wedge P) [/itex] (∧ = logical AND, ∨ = logical OR).
  5. Jan 6, 2017 #4
    Thank you very much Andrew Mason and Svein.
  6. Jan 12, 2017 #5

    Stephen Tashi

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It's possible to understand the why the truth table for ##P \implies Q## is defined the way it is by considering a more advanced situation where quantifiers are involved.

    For example, consider the statement: For each x, if x is a boy then x has a mother. Which we can abbreviate by:

    ##\forall x## For each x
    ## B(x)## x is a boy
    ## M(x)## x has a mother
    ## \forall x ( B(x) \implies M(x) ) ## For each x, if x is a boy then x has a mother.

    Statements such as ##\forall x ( B(c) \implies M(x)) ## are generalities. In mathematics, for a generality to be considered True, we demand that it is True without exceptions. (- not that it is True only 9 out of 10 times etc.)

    Suppose someone wishes to disprove ##\forall x ( B(x) \implies M(x)) ## by presenting an exception. Suppose he says "Let ##x =## my coffee cup. My coffee cup does not have a mother." We do not consider ##x = ## my coffee cup as a valid exception to the rule because a coffee cup is not a boy. The simplest way to prevent ##x = ## my coffee cup from disproving the rule is to declare that ##B(x) \implies M(x)## is a true when ##B(x)## is false. This prevents irrelevant examples from being used to claim exceptions to a generality.

    Let ##S(x)## denote "x wears suspenders". Consider the generality ##\forall x ( B(x) \implies S(x))##. To show an exception to this generality we need to provide an example of a boy who does not wear suspenders. This is in accordance with the truth table for ##B(x) \implies S(x)## , which says the implication is False when ##B(x)## is True and ##S(x)## is False.
  7. Jan 12, 2017 #6


    Staff: Mentor

    In addition to the other fine responses here, the truth value of the implication ##P \Rightarrow Q## is determined by the truth values of the statements P and Q, each of which can be either true or false.

    The only pair of truth values for P and Q that makes the implication false is when P is true and Q is false. All other combinations of truth values for P and Q result in a value of true for the implication. Here is the truth table for the implication ##P \Rightarrow Q##:
    Code (Text):

    P    Q    P => Q
    T    T        T
    T    F        F
    F    T        T
    F    F        T
  8. Jan 13, 2017 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Using the fact that a double negation does not change the value of a logic variable, we can derive the following identity: [itex] \neg Q\Rightarrow \neg P = \neg (\neg (\neg P) \wedge \neg Q) = \neg (P \wedge \neg Q)= \neg (\neg Q \wedge P)=P\Rightarrow Q[/itex]. This equivalence is called contraposition and is often used in mathematical proofs.
  9. Jan 18, 2017 #8
    Thank you all so much!
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted