All math statements of the if A then B form?

[evagelos]

........................................Yes.................................................

 

[Tac-Tics]

If you are a philosophy major, then all math statements are of the form "if A then B".

If you are not a philosophy major, then you that this statement and the one previous are poorly specified.

The axioms of mathematics can be thought of implicit. They can be thought of explicit. It depends on how you're laying out your problem. If you consider whether "laying out the problem" constitutes an conditional statement, then the answer degenerates with the flavor of "yes, it does" hanging in the air. But like all good philosophy questions, the answer is meaningless.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Let me then define by C : a------>(b----->a) and use C as an axiom together with the said definition.

isn't that o.k

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's question: "If you call a Lamb's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?" and answer: "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one".

You can "hide" the conditional but it is still there.

Is "A----> B" and "if, then" statement? Of course it is.

If I defind "C= A---->B", is "C" and "if, then" statement? Of course it is.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Let me then define by C : a------>(b----->a) and use C as an axiom together with the said definition.

isn't that o.k

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's question: "If you call a Lamb's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?" and answer: "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one".

You can "hide" the conditional but it is still there.

Is "A----> B" an "if, then" statement? Of course it is.

If I define "C= A---->B", is "C" and "if, then" statement? Of course it is.

 

[evagelos]

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's question: "If you call a Lamb's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?" and answer: "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one".

You can "hide" the conditional but it is still there.

Is "A----> B" an "if, then" statement? Of course it is.

If I define "C= A---->B", is "C" and "if, then" statement? Of course it is.

Why when you substitute ....b---->a ,by B in ..........a---->(b---->a) don't you hide the conditional .......a----->b???While is still there??

Hence...........a----->(b----->a) it is not of the (if A then B ) form.

Your example is not very appropriate try to find another one

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think we're done here.

 

[CompuChip]

Yes, everyone seems to agree with HallsOfIvy already, except for one person

 

[HallsofIvy]

Why when you substitute ....b---->a ,by B in ..........a---->(b---->a) don't you hide the conditional .......a----->b???While is still there??

Hence...........a----->(b----->a) it is not of the (if A then B ) form.

On the contray, it obviously is: A= a, B= (b---->a).

Your example is not very appropriate try to find another one

It was your example, not mine.