Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Math Help - proof that (p=>q) is the same as (not p => not q)

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12

    proof that (p=>q) is the same as (not p => not q)

    I cannot come up with the proof that (p => q) is the same as (not p => not q).

    If anyone can help - that would be great.

    As I understand it: (p => q) is always true except when p is true and q is false.
    If that definition is true, then (not p => not q) cannot possibly be the same.



    This cannot be. What am I missing?

    Thanks a million for any constructive help.

    Jason
    Last edited by jasonfranklin; August 2nd 2009 at 01:16 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member Danneedshelp's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    303
    Are you sure you are not trying to show P\Rightarrow{Q} is equivalent to \sim{Q}\Rightarrow{\sim{P}} ?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor Bruno J.'s Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    From
    Canada
    Posts
    1,266
    Thanks
    1
    Awards
    1
    You're usually going to have a hard time proving false things; that's the beauty of mathematics. It never lets us fool ourselves.

    I suggest always thinking of a small example to see if your "theorem" is true before you start trying to prove it.

    If I have a cold, I have a sore throat.
    Does that imply that if I don't have a cold, I don't have a sore throat?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    This is not a question of perspectives.

    I am talking about the contrapositive of p=>q.

    is p=>q the same as (not p => not q).

    can this be proved in a truth table.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    o_O
    o_O is offline
    Primero Espada
    o_O's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Canada
    Posts
    1,407
    The contrapositive of p \Rightarrow  q is : {\color{white}.} \sim q \Rightarrow \ \sim p

    Contrapositive
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,663
    Thanks
    1616
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonfranklin View Post
    This is not a question of perspectives.
    I am talking about the contrapositive of p=>q.
    is p=>q the same as (not p => not q).
    can this be proved in a truth table.
    The contrapositive is: P\, \Rightarrow Q \equiv \neg Q\, \Rightarrow \neg P.
    Not what you wrote.

    \neg P\, \Rightarrow \neg Q is the inverese of  P\, \Rightarrow  Q

    The inverse is not the same as the contrapositive.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    this is not my information.

    p=>q
    q=>p is the converse
    not p => not q is the contrapositive

    what is then the contrapositive in your book???
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    o_O
    o_O is offline
    Primero Espada
    o_O's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    Canada
    Posts
    1,407
    Perhaps you wrote it wrong in your notes. Three members have told you what the contrapositive is as well as providing a link to the wikipedia article on what it is.

    Try a google search and tell us what you find: What is contrapositive

    You even told us that you couldn't show by truth tables that the two statements you have aren't equivalent. And I assure you that you won't be able to simply because they aren't.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,663
    Thanks
    1616
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonfranklin View Post
    this is not my information.
    p=>q
    q=>p is the converse
    not p => not q is the contrapositive
    You information is incorrect.
    It is at odds with the whole history of logic.
    I assure that it must be a typo or missprint in your textbook.
    Reread my post to you. It is the correct information.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Senior Member Danneedshelp's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonfranklin View Post
    this is not my information.

    p=>q
    q=>p is the converse
    not p => not q is the contrapositive

    what is then the contrapositive in your book???
    At least three posts already contain the definition of the contrapositive.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Newbie
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    thanks for the help - but the wiki article is telling me this:




    is the above truth table correct?

    or this one?

    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,663
    Thanks
    1616
    Awards
    1
    Using your notation this is correct.
    <br />
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}<br />
   P & Q & {P\, \Rightarrow Q} & {\neg Q \Rightarrow \neg P}  \\<br />
\hline<br />
   0 & 0 & 1 & 1  \\<br />
   0 & 1 & 1 & 1  \\<br />
   1 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\<br />
   1 & 1 & 1 & 1  \\<br /> <br />
 \end{array}
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    Plato . thanks a million billion - i thought i was going mad.

    the only thing is i dont get why....

    if the definition for p=>q is that it is false only when p is true and q is false then surely this table should be correct. (even though it is obviously not).



    if p=>q is false only when p is true and q is false,

    is also (not p=> not q) false only when not p is true and not q is false?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,663
    Thanks
    1616
    Awards
    1
    That table is correct. But it proves nothing.
    If one wants to show two statement forms are equivalent, then there truth columns must be identical.
    That is not the case in the above.
    You have compared the statement “If P then Q.” with its inverse “If not P then not Q’.
    You have shown that they are not equivalent. Their columns are not the same.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    Hi Plato,

    This is a nightmare.

    How can both tables be true?

    I want to be able to show that this table is true.



    It is clear why the p=>q colums gets those values. (p=>q) is only false when p is true and q is false. But.....Why on earth does the (not q => not p) column get those values? based on what?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 19th 2010, 10:50 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 29th 2010, 08:48 AM
  3. [SOLVED] direct proof and proof by contradiction
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 10:07 PM
  4. Proof with algebra, and proof by induction (problems)
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 8th 2008, 01:20 PM
  5. proof that the proof that .999_ = 1 is not a proof (version)
    Posted in the Advanced Applied Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 14th 2008, 04:07 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum