Negation of a statement If P then Q

  • Thread starter Thread starter fk378
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the logical equivalence of the statement "If P then Q" and the expression "Either P is false, or Q must be true." The context involves understanding implications in logic, particularly through examples related to weather conditions and their consequences.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of logical equivalence and question how the truth of Q relates to the falsity of P. There are attempts to clarify the implications of using inclusive or in logical statements, and some participants express confusion regarding the relationship between the statements.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants questioning assumptions and clarifying concepts related to logical implications and equivalences. There is no explicit consensus, as differing interpretations of the statements are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of logical statements, particularly in the context of truth values and the nature of implications versus disjunctions.

fk378
Messages
366
Reaction score
0
"If P then Q"
Why is this logically equivalent to "Either P is false, or Q must be true"?? Can anyone explain this in plain English?

If P is "It is raining" and Q is "you will get wet", then how can Q be true if P is false ("It is not raining, and you will get wet")?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's not the negation. It's logically equivalent. If P is false, then saying "If P then Q" has no useful information. To say "If it is raining then you will get wet" doesn't tell you anything about whether you will get wet if it's not raining.
 
Oh sorry, I meant to ask why it is logically equivalent. Disregard the negation part, I will edit it now.
 
fk378 said:
"If P then Q"
Why is this logically equivalent to "Either P is false, or Q must be true"?? Can anyone explain this in plain English?

If P is "It is raining" and Q is "you will get wet", then how can Q be true if P is false ("It is not raining, and you will get wet")?
OR! "either it is not raining OR you get wet".
 
Yes but isn't this the inclusive OR? In which case one of the situations is that BOTH P and Q are true...
 
fk378 said:
Yes but isn't this the inclusive OR? In which case one of the situations is that BOTH P and Q are true...

Yes. In that case both the implication and the or statement are both true. Why is that a problem? Start making truth tables, ok?
 
Well "Either P is false, OR Q must be true"..."If it is not raining, you will get wet"

That is supposed to be true?
 
No! The implication is "P implies Q". NOT "not P implies Q". "If it IS raining, you will get wet." And WHAT is supposed to be true?? Any of these statements can by either true or false. What you are trying to show is that two of them are logically equivalent. Those two are not.
 
Inclusive or means A is true OR B is true OR both are true. As long as anyone of those is true, the statement is true.

Assuming the statement "if it is raining then you will get wet" is true, it certainly also true that "either it is not raining or you will get wet" is true. It happens that here they can't BOTH be true but they don't have to: only one of them has to be true.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K