Why "the conditional in which the antecedent is false" is always true?

  • B
  • Thread starter Pedroski55
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Conditional
In summary, the conversation is discussing the use of predicate logic to determine if someone is a guitarist based on the statement "If there is a person x who can play the guitar, then Lemmy is a guitarist." The conversation also discusses the implications and limitations of this statement, and how it may not always accurately reflect reality.
  • #1
12
3
TL;DR Summary
Gp→Gl is true since the conditional in which the antecedent is false is always true. (Agnishom does not play the guitar).
I'm just learning some basic predicate logic. I found this.

  • UD: People
  • Gx: x can play the guitar
  • l: Lemmy
In the expression ∃xGx→Gl, the scope of the quantifier ∃ is the expression Gx. This translates to If there is a guitarist, Lemmy is a guitarist.

Now this is changed to:

∃x (Gx→Gl), we have changed the scope of the quantifier to the entire expression. The sentence now means, There is a person x such that if x is a guitarist, Lemmy is a guitarist.

I think I follow the above, but the next part:

You might notice that this sentence is true because non-Guitarists exist.

For example, let p be Agnishom. Gp→Gl is true since the conditional in which the antecedent is false is always true. (Agnishom does not play the guitar). Since someone, namely p, satisfies the sentence, ∃x(Gx→Gl) is true.

Gp is FALSE (When p = Agnishom, I think)

I expected, only if Gx is true then (Gx→Gl) is true.

Why is (Gp→Gl) TRUE when Gp is FALSE?? (Agnishom does not play the guitar)

Thanks for any tips or pointers. I want to understand this before I continue. It seems important.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Consider the proposition:

For each number x, if x > 3 then x > 2.

Would you want x = 1 to be an example showing that the above proposition is False?

If not, then we must use the convention that "if 1 > 3 then 1 > 2" is True.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu and FactChecker
  • #3
Thanks for your reply!

Sorry, but I don't get it! Could you elaborate?

p is not a guitarist, by definition
Gp is FALSE (When p = Agnishom, I think)

I read Gx→Gl : if Gx is true, then Gl is true ( and the obverse is : when Gx is false, then Gl is false)

1>3 is false
1>2 is false

but I don't follow the relationship to the guitarists!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Pedroski55 said:
I read Gx→Gl : if Gx is true, then Gl is true ( and the obverse is : when Gx is false, then Gl is false)
Where do you read the obverse? (I can't use the link you gave because it requires a login.)
 
  • #5
I assume the obverse. Is that not so?

Thinking about this, I am wondering why Predicate logic makes such absurd claims.

UD : all people

Some of them are guitarists, but I have no way of knowing that Lemmy is or is not able to play.

If I want to know if Lemmy is a guitarist, I will look up his name in a list of guitar players.

Python:
g_players = ['Jane', 'Jenny', ... , 'Paul', 'Percival']

def is_a_guitarist(name):
    if name in g_players:
        print(name, 'is a guitarist')
    else:
         print(name, 'is not a guitarist')

Why assume someone is a guitarist because someone else is?

Likewise, if I want to know if a number is greater than 3:

Python:
if num > 3:
    print(num, 'is greater than 3')

Why would I make counter-intuitive assumptions?
 
  • #6
Pedroski55 said:
I assume the obverse. Is that not so?

If you are asking whether the Truth of ##A \implies B## guarantees the Truth of ##\lnot A \implies \lnot B##, it does not. For example:

For each whole number x, if x is divisible by 14 then x is divisible by 7.

Consider the case of x = 21.

The Truth table for ##A \implies B## is different than the state transistion for a computer instruction. The usual convention in computer languages is that the instruction "If A then do B" does not execute instruction B if condition A is False. However, this does not prohibit a different instruction from executing instruction B in the case when condition A is False.
 
  • #7
Pedroski55 said:
I read Gx→Gl : if Gx is true, then Gl is true ( and the obverse is : when Gx is false, then Gl is false)
I believe that this is not the valid obverse of ##Gx\rightarrow Gl##
 
  • #8
Well, thank you for your replies, I see I am going to have to read a lot more about this!
 
  • #9
This is maybe a way to think of it.

Let’s make up an ordering on truth values. Say that true is greater than false. There are only two truth values, so that tells us everything we need to know about the ordering. Then for any two sentences ##A## and ##B##, we can say that ##A \leq B## if the truth value of ##A## is less than or equal to the truth value of ##B##. Either they are both true, or both false, or ##A## is false while ##B## is true.

Now, we can establish some facts about ##\leq##.

  1. If we know ##A \leq B## and we know ##A## is true, then we know ##B## is true.
  2. If we know that ##A## is false, then we know that ##A \leq B##, regardless of what ##B## is.
  3. If we know that ##B## is true, then we know ##A \leq B##, regardless of what ##A## is.

If this makes sense to you, then you can just interpret ##A\rightarrow B## as ##A \leq B##.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD and Office_Shredder
  • #10
stevendaryl said:
If this makes sense to you, then you can just interpret ##A\rightarrow B## as ##A \leq B##.
Some other expressions:
##A \leq B##
##A \geq B##
##A<B##
##A>B##
##A=B##
##A \neq B##
 
  • #11
SSequence said:
Some other expressions:
##A \leq B##
##A \geq B##
##A<B##
##A>B##
##A=B##
##A \neq B##
In terms of implication, those would be written as

##A \rightarrow B##
##B\rightarrow A##
##(A \rightarrow B ) \wedge \neg (A \leftrightarrow B)##
##(B \rightarrow A ) \wedge \neg (A \leftrightarrow B)##
##A\leftrightarrow B##
##\neg (A\leftrightarrow B)##
 
  • #12
SSequence said:
Some other expressions:
##A \leq B##
##A \geq B##
##A<B##
##A>B##
##A=B##
##A \neq B##
I wonder if it is a stretch to argue that implication "rewards" non-decreasing truth values and punishes decreasing ones, i.e., we don't "reward" ( by assigning a truth value T) a sequence where we start with a true statement and derive a false one
 
  • #13
Not sure whether you meant so say something precise or not. At any rate, an expression such as:
##A \leq B \leq C##
came to my mind. Upon writing truth table (if I didn't happen to make a mistake), it doesn't seem to be equivalent to either of:
##(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C##
##A \rightarrow (B \rightarrow C)##

[of course they are equivalent to ##(A \leq B) \leq C## and ##A \leq (B \leq C)## respectively]Note:
Though probably one would note though that if implication did happen to be associative, then ##A \leq B \leq C## would not be particularly good notation. Since ##A \wedge B \wedge C## is written as a short-hand for ##(A \wedge B) \wedge C## or ##A \wedge (B \wedge C)##. And similarly for ##A \vee B \vee C## too.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
WWGD said:
I wonder if it is a stretch to argue that implication "rewards" non-decreasing truth values and punishes decreasing ones, i.e., we don't "reward" ( by assigning a truth value T) a sequence where we start with a true statement and derive a false one
Yes that is too much of a stretch. Predicate logic is a formal system in which things mean exactly what we define them to mean, no more and no less. We define the relationship ## A \implies B ## as corresponding to the following truth table:
Code:
A | B | A ⇒ B
-------------
F   F |   T
F   T |   T
T   F |   F
T   T |   T

Trying to rationalize this with the baggage that comes with the word "implies" from everyday speech is a waste of time. Predicate logic is not a tool for encoding everyday speech, it is a tool for helping us construct formal statements whose truth can be tested.
 
  • #15
pbuk said:
Yes that is too much of a stretch. Predicate logic is a formal system in which things mean exactly what we define them to mean, no more and no less. We define the relationship ## A \implies B ## as corresponding to the following truth table:
Code:
A | B | A ⇒ B
-------------
F   F |   T
F   T |   T
T   F |   F
T   T |   T

Trying to rationalize this with the baggage that comes with the word "implies" from everyday speech is a waste of time. Predicate logic is not a tool for encoding everyday speech, it is a tool for helping us construct formal statements whose truth can be tested.
How does that truth table output describe/model implication better than any of the other 15 choices then ?
 

1. Why is the conditional statement "if the antecedent is false, then the consequent is true" always true?

The conditional statement is true because it follows the logical principle of "ex falso quodlibet," which means "from falsehood, anything follows." In other words, if the antecedent is false, the statement has no restrictions, so the consequent can be any value, including true.

2. How does the truth value of the antecedent affect the truth value of the conditional statement?

The truth value of the antecedent does not affect the truth value of the conditional statement. Even if the antecedent is false, the statement remains true because it is not dependent on the truth or falsity of the antecedent.

3. Can you provide an example to illustrate why the conditional statement is always true when the antecedent is false?

Sure, let's say the conditional statement is "If it is raining, then the grass is wet." If it is not raining, the antecedent is false. However, the statement is still true because the grass could be wet for other reasons, such as being watered or due to morning dew.

4. Is the conditional statement "if the antecedent is false, then the consequent is true" a valid logical argument?

Yes, the conditional statement is a valid logical argument. It follows the logical principle of modus ponens, which states that if the antecedent is true, then the consequent must also be true. In this case, the antecedent is false, but the consequent can still be true.

5. Are there any exceptions to the rule that the conditional statement is always true when the antecedent is false?

No, there are no exceptions to this rule. The logical principle of "ex falso quodlibet" applies universally, meaning that in any situation where the antecedent is false, the consequent can be true without contradicting the conditional statement.

Suggested for: Why "the conditional in which the antecedent is false" is always true?

Back
Top