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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formation of contrapositive statements in logic, specifically whether the logical connective "and" should be changed to "or" when forming the contrapositive of a given statement. The context includes logical reasoning and the application of De Morgan's laws.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a statement involving one-to-one and onto functions and questions the validity of changing "and" to "or" in its contrapositive.
  • Another participant asserts that the negation of "A and B" is "not A or not B," referencing De Morgan's laws to support the need for the change.
  • A different participant clarifies that the contrapositive of "if A then B" is "if not B then not A," emphasizing the focus on negating the conjunction.
  • One participant confirms that the contrapositive is indeed an "or," reiterating the necessity of negating the conjunction.
  • There is a question about whether the contrapositive can be expressed as "not one-to-one or not onto," which is confirmed by another participant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of De Morgan's laws to the formation of contrapositive statements, but there is an initial question regarding the necessity of changing "and" to "or." The discussion reflects a mix of confirmation and clarification rather than outright consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion relies on the understanding of logical negation and the application of De Morgan's laws, which may not be universally understood by all participants. There are also nuances in how the contrapositive is framed that could lead to different interpretations.

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
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K