Results 1 to 8 of 8

Math Help - Prove that (p ⇒ q) ⇔ (段 ⇒ 殆)

  1. #1
    s3a
    s3a is offline
    Super Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    597

    Prove that (p ⇒ q) ⇔ (段 ⇒ 殆)

    How do I show this?

    Any input would be greatly appreciated!
    Thanks in advance!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by s3a View Post
    How do I show this?

    Any input would be greatly appreciated!
    Thanks in advance!
    First, I would be slightly careful with the notation...

    In logic, the symbol for "implies" is generally \rightarrow. We use \Rightarrow on the "metamathematical" level; i.e., when we want to talk ABOUT formulas such as these. A subtle distinction, but nonetheless important...

    Anyway, to prove that (p\rightarrow q) and (\neg p\rightarrow \neg q) are really the "same thing", I would simply construct a truth table. Make all possible combinations of T and F for each of the two "statements" p,q and, for each, use the rules for the if...then connective \rightarrow to find the truth values of the two statements. If you can prove that the two have the same exact truth table, then you are done.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    A Plied Mathematician
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    From
    CT, USA
    Posts
    6,318
    Thanks
    4
    Awards
    2
    Please see this sticky and do what it says.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    s3a
    s3a is offline
    Super Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    597
    topspin1617: Thanks! I feel dumb now. Is there a way to do this with algebra and not using tables though? If there is, could you tell me how to do it that way too please? (My notation is correct since my teacher uses it and it's all I've ever seen - maybe you're using a different system as I write below?)

    Ackbeet: I have no idea, what system I am using. How do I figure it out for future reference?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by s3a View Post
    topspin1617: Thanks! I feel dumb now. Is there a way to do this with algebra and not using tables though? If there is, could you tell me how to do it that way too please? (My notation is correct since my teacher uses it and it's all I've ever seen - maybe you're using a different system as I write below?)

    Ackbeet: I have no idea, what system I am using. How do I figure it out for future reference?
    You're welcome. I'm not saying your notation is wrong, really... it's just a very subtle thing. Basically... notice how if you JUST write what you're trying to prove, (p ⇒ q) ⇔ (段 ⇒ 殆), it just looks like one long formula? That's all I'm saying.

    And if you don't know which type of logic you're using, then chances are you're just using basic, first order propositional logic. Which... well basically just means the few symbols you've learned, and the rules that go with them. Nothing fancy.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,536
    Thanks
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by s3a View Post
    Is there a way to do this with algebra and not using tables though?
    p ⇒ q = 殆 \/ q. Also, 段 ⇒ 殆 = 洵q \/ 殆 = 殆 \/ q.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    s3a
    s3a is offline
    Super Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    597
    I'm confused at the first step, could you tell me how to get there? Like could you please state every theorem or identity or whatever? Sorry if it's obvious.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,536
    Thanks
    778
    The equality p ⇒ q = 殆 \/ q can be verified using a truth table. Alternatively, if you approach this problem from a purely syntactic standpoint (i.e., no talking about truth values, only rewriting some expressions by others), then it can serve as the definition of ⇒, or it has to be an axiom or follow from other axioms. So, in the syntactic approach, one has to specify the basic equivalences one starts with.

    This is similar to justifying 2 * n = n + n. If you are looking at this from the high-school algebra standpoint, then you can take any number n and verify that the equation is true. If you are in a more abstract setting, such as when this equation can later be applied to vectors, functions and other objects that may not even be in the picture at this moment, then this equation must be an axiom or follow from other axioms. In this case, the set of axioms must be specified.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Prove that
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 21st 2010, 05:48 AM
  2. A ⊂ b ⇒ p (a) ≤ p (b)
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 16th 2010, 01:18 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 28th 2009, 02:59 AM
  4. prove that
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 7th 2008, 05:14 PM
  5. prove
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 7th 2008, 01:45 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum