1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Logic - clarification needed about implication

  1. Feb 9, 2013 #1
    If P→Q, and P is false but Q is true, then why is P→Q true? To me, it seems as though we shouldn't be able to do proceed because there isn't enough information. Same goes when P and Q are both false, how does that suggest P→Q is true?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 9, 2013 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    "If it rains, the street gets wet"
    This statement is true, even if I spill water on the street (without rain).
    More general: It cannot be false, if it does not rain. It just does not give any information about the street in that case.
     
  4. Feb 9, 2013 #3

    AlephZero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Another reason for those definitions is so that logic "works" the way it should, for every combination of "true" and "false".

    For example, "P implies Q" means the same (in ordinary English) as "if P is true, then Q is true", which means the same as "if Q is false, then P is false".

    So the truth table for P→Q must be the same as for (not Q)→(not P),

    That means P→Q must be defined as true, when P and Q are both false.

    You can create a similar argument to show how P→Q must be defined with P is false and Q is true.
     
  5. Feb 9, 2013 #4

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Logic - clarification needed about implication
Loading...