$\begingroup$

From my understanding these two statements are logically equivalent

p → q ≡∼p ∨ q (can someone 'explainlikei'mfive' why that makes sense)

When I come across this,

(∀a)(∀b)(∃c)[a < b → a < c < b]

is it the same as

(∀a)(∀b)(∃c)[a ≥ b ∨ (a < c < b)]

$\endgroup$ 1

2 Answers

$\begingroup$

Equivalently and more intuitive is $p\implies q \equiv \neg[p \land \neg q]$

Consider the sentence: If it is raining then it is cloudy. A common misperception is that this means that cloudiness causes rain, or that rain causes cloudiness. Neither is the case. [Edit: It just means that, at a given instant in time, it is not both raining and not cloudy. There is no suggestion of the passage of time or an historical record.]

$Raining \implies Cloudy \equiv \neg [Raining \land \neg Cloudy]$

$\endgroup$ 2 $\begingroup$

We know that $p \rightarrow q$ is false if and only if $p$ is true and $q$ is false. This can be stated as

$$\neg (p \rightarrow q) \equiv p \land \neg q$$

Negating both sides gives

$$p \rightarrow q \equiv \neg (p \land \neg q)$$

$$\equiv \neg p \lor \neg \neg q \mbox{ (De Morgan's law)}$$

$$\equiv \neg p \lor q$$

$$\therefore p \rightarrow q \equiv \neg p \lor q$$

You can verify this using a truth table.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Sign up using Google Sign up using Facebook Sign up using Email and Password Submit

Post as a guest

Post Your Answer Discard

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy