can you prove the converse and inverse are logically equivalent?
ok - now I got it!!!
My mistrake was that I assumed the headings in both the tables were the same!!
And of course they are not!
You all saw the difference in the headings - I did not - I just assumed that I had the same headings! A very very stupid mistake.
Anyway just to conclude this thread - re-reading the definitions helped be realize my mistake.
converse: q -> p
the hypothesis and the conclusion switch places -- the conclusion becomes the hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes the conclusion
inverse: not p -> not q
negate both the hypothesis and the conclusion
(a combination of the converse and the inverse): not q -> not p
negate and switch the hypothesis and the conclusion
Thanks for your help - I got there eventually.
By the way, have you realized that you started by talking about "not p => not q" which is certainly NOT the contrapositive you are now talking about "not q=> not p".
Hallsofivy, many thanks for your feedback at this.
I got there eventually - I realized the mistake I was making at the end of the day and documented it earlier on in the thread.