Haha!

not to put engineers down, i'm sure there are some really smart ones out there, and yes, even ones that are good at math. but this is certainly true of any engineer i've ever met!

haha, when i was first learning this, this entry in the truth table bothered me too. now i agree with

**emakarov**, when it comes to definitions, it is not the "why?" that is important, but the "is this useful?" that is. we do

*proofs* to handle the "why"'s.

anyway, i believe there is some reason to this odd definition, here is how i reconciled it to myself all those years ago.

I make the statement, "If pigs fly, then you can understand Chernoff's bound."

The statement "pigs fly" is obviously false (except at your school

). Now if you come to me and tell me, "I don't understand the bound". I can respond to you, "did I lie? I said if pigs fly, you would understand it, pigs don't fly, so of course you don't understand it!" if you come to me and say, "i do understand the bound!" i can respond, "did i lie? you simply understood it

*despite the fact* pigs don't fly. i never said pigs flying was the

*only* way to understand it. (that would be the bi-implication, which would definitely be false here)".

So you see? if the first statement is false, then whether or not you understand the bound, i did NOT lie. That is, i did not make a false statement. Well, there are only two options here, true or false, if i didn't make a false one, i must have made a true one.

P => Q means that if P happens, then Q will happen. The only way for this statement to be false, is if i lied and P happens but Q didn't. otherwise, it must be true.

...or do i know bananas about logic?