Conditional Statments and Truth Value

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the logical statement P ⊃ Q, which remains true if P is false and Q is true. Participants explore the reasoning behind this, questioning whether the common interpretation of "If P, then Q" is misleading. They clarify that the relationship between sets P and Q allows for scenarios where P can be false while Q is true. The conversation also touches on the paradox of the material conditional and how modal operators relate to logical deductions. Ultimately, the logic of conditional statements can be understood through set relationships and their implications.
toboldlygo
Messages
32
Reaction score
2
So, I know that P ⊃ Q is a true statement even if P is false as long as Q is true. However, I don't understand why that is, or how that is logically sound. Is it because I'm stuck in thinking of these types of statements as "If P, then Q," and they are not supposed to be thought of that way? How else can I approach this to have it make logical sense to me? Thanks. Also, I'm sorry if this is supposed to go to the HW section (I thought this fit here); please let me know and I'll move it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given the statement P⊂Q (i.e., the elements of the set P are contained in the set Q),
it is not illogical to have an event where P is false and Q is true.

It could be the case that there are multiple elements in the set Q that are not also in the set P.
If that were the case, than an event could be in Q and not in P.
 
  • Like
Likes toboldlygo
toboldlygo said:
So, I know that P ⊃ Q is a true statement even if P is false as long as Q is true. However, I don't understand why that is, or how that is logically sound. Is it because I'm stuck in thinking of these types of statements as "If P, then Q," and they are not supposed to be thought of that way? How else can I approach this to have it make logical sense to me? Thanks. Also, I'm sorry if this is supposed to go to the HW section (I thought this fit here); please let me know and I'll move it.

If the moon is blue then the Earth is round.
If the moon is not blue then the Earth is round.
THEREFORE
The Earth is round.
If the first statement were false, then the deduction wouldn't follow.
 
jfizzix said:
Given the statement P⊂Q (i.e., the elements of the set P are contained in the set Q),
it is not illogical to have an event where P is false and Q is true.
I really like thinking of it this way! Would it be accurate, then, for me to think of it like this: if P = {a, b, c} and Q = {P, d}, then P can be false even if Q is true?
 
See also the paradox of the material conditional. There are modal operators where ## p \rightarrow q## only if q can be derived logically from p.
 
toboldlygo said:
I really like thinking of it this way! Would it be accurate, then, for me to think of it like this: if P = {a, b, c} and Q = {P, d}, then P can be false even if Q is true?
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes toboldlygo
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top