Need help with truth table for P->Q and it's inverse

Mofasa
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I'm struggling with the bellow truth tables:

P = I live in Paris
Q = I live in France

A B C
P → Q Q → P ¬ Q → ¬ P
S S S S S S F S F
S F F F S S S F F
F S S S F F F S S
F S F F S F S S S

Table A and C I'm fully clear with. However I don't understand the truth table for B (the converse of P → Q).

Table B:

Q → P
S S S
F S S
S F F
F S F

If I live in France there is a possibility I live in Paris S (Understand)
If I don't live in France there is a possibility I live in Paris S (Don't understand)
If I live in France there is not a possibility I live in Paris F (Don't understand)
I I don't live in France there is not a possibility I live in Paris S (Understand)

I want line 2 to be false and line 3 to be true.

Can someone explain why this should not be the case?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Q → P ("If I live in France, I live in Paris") is wrong in reality, why do you expect correct results for this?
 
mfb said:
Q → P ("If I live in France, I live in Paris") is wrong in reality, why do you expect correct results for this?

If Q is false, then Q\rightarrow P is always a true statement. So if you don't live in France, then the statement "If I live in France, then I live in Paris" is true.

The only way Q\rightarrow P can ever be false is if Q is true and P is false.
 
micromass said:
If Q is false, then Q\rightarrow P is always a true statement. So if you don't live in France, then the statement "If I live in France, then I live in Paris" is true.

The only way Q\rightarrow P can ever be false is if Q is true and P is false.
Okay, to be more precise: Q → P is not true in general (=for all) in reality.
 
Mofasa said:
Hi!

I'm struggling with the bellow truth tables:

P = I live in Paris
Q = I live in France

A B C
P → Q Q → P ¬ Q → ¬ P
S S S S S S F S F
S F F F S S S F F
F S S S F F F S S
F S F F S F S S S

Table A and C I'm fully clear with. However I don't understand the truth table for B (the converse of P → Q).

Table B:

Q → P
S S S
F S S
S F F
F S F

If I live in France there is a possibility I live in Paris S (Understand)
If I don't live in France there is a possibility I live in Paris S (Don't understand)
If I live in France there is not a possibility I live in Paris F (Don't understand)
I I don't live in France there is not a possibility I live in Paris S (Understand)

I want line 2 to be false and line 3 to be true.

Can someone explain why this should not be the case?

The truth table for Q→P is exactly the same as that for P→Q , since they are both

plain/standard conditionals. Notice that the tables are exactly the same except

rows 2 and 3 have been exchanged.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top