Results 1 to 3 of 3

Math Help - Conditional Connective in Logic

  1. #1
    Super Member
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    From
    Scotland
    Posts
    901

    Conditional Connective in Logic

    Hello.

    Having a bit of trouble understanding the truth table for the statement:

     P \to Q .

    Could somebody run me through the scenarios and explain how they affect the truth value of  P \to Q . In particular, the scenario where P is false, but Q is true... how does this imply that  P \to Q is true?

    So :

    P true, Q true:  P \to Q ?

    P true, Q false:  P \to Q ?

    P false, Q true:  P \to Q ?

    P false, Q false:  P \to Q ?

    I know the answers are true, false, true, true. But can someone explain the logic behind it?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,572
    Thanks
    1412
    Quote Originally Posted by Mush View Post
    Hello.

    Having a bit of trouble understanding the truth table for the statement:

     P \to Q .

    Could somebody run me through the scenarios and explain how they affect the truth value of  P \to Q . In particular, the scenario where P is false, but Q is true... how does this imply that  P \to Q is true?

    So :

    P true, Q true:  P \to Q ?

    P true, Q false:  P \to Q ?

    P false, Q true:  P \to Q ?

    P false, Q false:  P \to Q ?

    I know the answers are true, false, true, true. But can someone explain the logic behind it?
    The "logic" behind it is that it is DEFINED that way! You are asking a slightly different question, I think- you want to connect that with out "everyday" idea of "if... then...". And the difficulty with that is our usual concept of "if A then B" does NOT assign a truth value in the case that A is false, no matter what B is. You have to be careful to distinguish between "If A then B" and "A if and only if B". "If A then B" only talks about what happens if A is TRUE. It says nothing at all about what happens if A is false. But for symbolic logic purposes, we must have a value in all cases and it is simplest to assign "true". I like to think of it as "innocent until proven guilty". Suppose a teacher says to his class, "If you get "A" on every test, I will give you an "A" in the course." Okay, you get an "A" on every test and get an "A" in the course (the "T->T" case). His statement was obviously true. On the other hand, suppose you get a "B" on every test and get a B for the course (the "F->F" case). Again, his statement is true. But suppose you got an A on every test but one and a B on that one. If he gives you an "A" was his statement false (the F-> T case)? No, because he never said what would happen if you DIDN'T get an A on every test. The only way you could be SURE his statement was false was if you got an A on every test and did NOT get an A in the course (the "T->F" case).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Super Member
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    From
    Scotland
    Posts
    901
    Quote Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post
    The "logic" behind it is that it is DEFINED that way! You are asking a slightly different question, I think- you want to connect that with out "everyday" idea of "if... then...". And the difficulty with that is our usual concept of "if A then B" does NOT assign a truth value in the case that A is false, no matter what B is. You have to be careful to distinguish between "If A then B" and "A if and only if B". "If A then B" only talks about what happens if A is TRUE. It says nothing at all about what happens if A is false. But for symbolic logic purposes, we must have a value in all cases and it is simplest to assign "true". I like to think of it as "innocent until proven guilty". Suppose a teacher says to his class, "If you get "A" on every test, I will give you an "A" in the course." Okay, you get an "A" on every test and get an "A" in the course (the "T->T" case). His statement was obviously true. On the other hand, suppose you get a "B" on every test and get a B for the course (the "F->F" case). Again, his statement is true. But suppose you got an A on every test but one and a B on that one. If he gives you an "A" was his statement false (the F-> T case)? No, because he never said what would happen if you DIDN'T get an A on every test. The only way you could be SURE his statement was false was if you got an A on every test and did NOT get an A in the course (the "T->F" case).
    Indeed. I had the hunch that I was correct in saying that P being false gave no indication of the falsity of the statement P-> Q... but due to the nature of boolean algebra, the statement had to be either true or false.

    So, to conclude, if the premises neither negate nor confirm the conditional statement, then we assume it is true by default for the purposes of accordance with boolean algebra?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Logical connective Question
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 2nd 2010, 01:18 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 17th 2010, 09:46 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 5th 2010, 12:38 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 19th 2010, 06:21 PM
  5. Expressing propositions using a defined connective.
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 14th 2009, 12:19 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum