Rules of Implication: Is [(P implies A) etc] True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cris(c)
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    implication Rules
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the logical implications of the statement [(P implies ~A) and (P implies B) and (P implies C)]. It concludes that if this combination is deemed impossible, it does not necessarily validate the statement [(P implies A) and (P implies B) and (P implies C)]. The key point is that P cannot simultaneously imply both A and its negation ~A. Therefore, the implication does not hold true. The conversation highlights the complexities of logical relationships and their implications in formal reasoning.
cris(c)
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Suppose I know that [(P implies ~A) and (P implies B) and (P implies C)] is impossible. Does this means that the following statement is true: [(P implies A) and (P implies B) and (P implies C)]?

Any help is greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
so basically you are asking if (P implies ~A) implies that (P implies A) and it does not..
 
I guess you're right! P cannot imply both A and ~A...
 

Similar threads

Prove that ##5 | (2^n a) \rightarrow (5 | a)##for any ##n##
Replies
10
Views
3K
I On the meaning of logical implication within specific context/models
Replies
22
Views
3K
Bayes' Theorem and a car starting probability
Replies
5
Views
3K
Use mathematical logic to prove this proposition
Replies
1
Views
1K
Prove Fibonacci identity using mathematical induction
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Intransitive implication
Replies
6
Views
1K
Mathematical Induction with binomial sum
Replies
9
Views
2K
Is Only If Logic Misinterpreted in Mathematical Statements?
Replies
9
Views
2K
A Uncertainties in the proof of Proposition 4.4.2 in Hawking and Ellis
Replies
2
Views
379
Do these two statements imply an underlying induction proof?
Replies
7
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top