Does the contrapositive statement require changing and to or?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear300
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contrapositive
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of changing "and" to "or" when forming the contrapositive of a logical statement. The original statement asserts that if α is one-to-one and β is onto, then the composition βoα is one-to-one and onto. After proving the statement false, the contrapositive was presented as "If βoα is not one-to-one and onto, then α is not one-to-one or β is not onto." It is clarified that this change is necessary due to De Morgan's laws, which state that the negation of "A and B" is equivalent to "not A or not B." Thus, the contrapositive is correctly expressed as an "or" statement.
Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
The statement is:
If α is one-to-one and β is onto, then βoα is one-to-one and onto.
One-to-one is injection, onto is surjection, and being both is bijection. After showing that the statement is false, the contrapositive was asked for. The answer given is:
If βoα is not one-to-one and onto, then α is not one-to-one or β is not onto.
They changed the "and" to an "or." I was thinking that the "and" would be conserved in the contrapositive statement. Is it valid or necessary to change an "and" to an "or" for contrapositive statements?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The opposite of "A and B" is "not A or not B". This is one of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeMorgan%27s_laws" . So yes, you need to change "and" to "or" in this case when forming the contrapositive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The contrapositive of "if A then B" is "if not B then not A",

But your question is not really about the contrapositive, it is about "Not (A and B)".

"Not (A and B)" is the same as saying "(not A or (not B)".

This is because "A and B" is true only if A= T and B= T. If A= T, B= F; A= F, B= T; or A= F, B= F, "A and B" is false. "Not (aA and B)" must be true in exactly those cases. In particular, it must be true in the cases A= T, B= F and A= F, B= T. That is precisely "(not A) or (not B)".

"(Not A) and (Not B)" would be true only in the case A= F, B= F.
 
No, the contrapositive is as stated: it is an or. You are negating things. The negation of

A and B

is

not A or not B

so it is both necessary and valid.

Think about it: suppose A and B together imply C

Then "not C" can only happen if at least one of A or B is not true, and that's not A or not B.
 
Gear300 said:
If βoα is not one-to-one and onto...

So does that imply the above quote would equivalently be written as If βoα is not one-to-one or βoα is not onto...?
 
Gear300 said:
So does that imply the above quote would equivalently be written as If βoα is not one-to-one or βoα is not onto...?


Correct.
 
Thanks
 
Back
Top