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...
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top