Logical equivalence of ¬p→q











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.



I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.



    I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.



      I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Just wondering what other ways $neg p to q$ can be expressed.



      I know that $pto q$ is logically equivalent to $neg plor q$, hence I think that $neg pto q$ has the same logical equivalence as $plor q$.







      propositional-calculus






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 11 at 18:41









      Mutantoe

      546411




      546411










      asked Nov 11 at 8:23









      Jordan Solomons

      197




      197






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.



          But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.



          Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for confirming!
            – Jordan Solomons
            Nov 11 at 10:55


















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.



          In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
            Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2993594%2flogical-equivalence-of-%25c2%25acp%25e2%2586%2592q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              4
              down vote













              As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.



              But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.



              Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • Thanks for confirming!
                – Jordan Solomons
                Nov 11 at 10:55















              up vote
              4
              down vote













              As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.



              But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.



              Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















              • Thanks for confirming!
                – Jordan Solomons
                Nov 11 at 10:55













              up vote
              4
              down vote










              up vote
              4
              down vote









              As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.



              But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.



              Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              As others have pointed out, truth tables will confirm the equivalence of $neg p to q$ and $p lor q$.



              But also you'll get additional insight by thinking informally. Suppose you are given that either $p$ or $q$. Then, if you rule out $p$, then you are left with $q$. So, in symbols, from $p lor q$ you can infer $neg p to q$.



              Conversely, suppose you are given that if not-$p$ then $q$. Then assuming you accept excluded middle, the principle that either $p$ or not $p$, it follows that either $p$ or (using that conditional) $q$. So, in symbols, from $neg p to q$ you can infer $p lor q$.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 11 at 8:49









              Peter Smith

              40.3k339118




              40.3k339118












              • Thanks for confirming!
                – Jordan Solomons
                Nov 11 at 10:55


















              • Thanks for confirming!
                – Jordan Solomons
                Nov 11 at 10:55
















              Thanks for confirming!
              – Jordan Solomons
              Nov 11 at 10:55




              Thanks for confirming!
              – Jordan Solomons
              Nov 11 at 10:55










              up vote
              2
              down vote













              You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.



              In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.



                In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.



                  In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  You have pretty much given the answer yourself already. Logical equivalence of $p$ and $q$ is given if $p$ is true if and only if $q$ is true (and hence $p$ is false iff $q$ is false). Since $p$ and $q$ can only be true or false, you can use truth tables and check whether logical equivalence is given. From there you can derive permissible manipulations of propositions.



                  In this case, $(lnot p) rightarrow q equiv lnot(lnot p) lor q equiv p lor q$, as you stated correctly.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 11 at 8:34









                  MacRance

                  505




                  505






















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
                      Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer

























                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
                        Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
                          Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          As you said, $pRightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg pvee q$.
                          Then by double negation, $neg p Rightarrow q$ is logically equivalent to $neg(neg p)vee q$, which amounts to $pvee q$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Nov 11 at 8:32









                          Wuestenfux

                          2,7371410




                          2,7371410






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2993594%2flogical-equivalence-of-%25c2%25acp%25e2%2586%2592q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Florida Star v. B. J. F.

                              Danny Elfman

                              Lugert, Oklahoma