Does the contrapositive statement require changing and to or?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear300
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contrapositive
Click For Summary
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 this statement false, the contrapositive is correctly stated as: if βoα is not one-to-one and onto, then α is not one-to-one or β is not onto. This transformation adheres to De Morgan's laws, confirming that the contrapositive requires changing "and" to "or" to maintain logical equivalence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logical statements and their components (one-to-one, onto, bijection)
  • Familiarity with contrapositive statements in logic
  • Knowledge of De Morgan's laws
  • Basic principles of mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study De Morgan's laws in depth
  • Explore the concept of bijections in set theory
  • Learn about logical equivalences and their applications
  • Practice forming contrapositives with various logical statements
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students of logic who are interested in understanding logical implications and their transformations.

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?
 
Physics 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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
4K