Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If I have a statement that says,

$I\implies J\implies K$.

Then

Can I say that,

since, $J \implies K$ and $J$ is true, $K$ is true as well.

Or Do I have to prove that $I$ is true as well to say so?

share|improve this question

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Sometimes we briskly express the three metalogical claims that (1) implies (2), and (2) implies (3), and (3) implies (1) in the compressed form $$(1) \Rightarrow (2) \Rightarrow (3) \Rightarrow (1)$$ So in this case, to be sure, if e.g. you already have an independent proof that (2) is true, you could extract the claim that $(2) \Rightarrow (3)$ and conclude that (3).

However we never make that contraction inside the propositional calculus: i.e. we never contract $$p \to q \land q \to r$$ to $$p \to q \to r.$$ Depending on your official rules for dropping brackets, the latter is either illegitimate or is to be read as $$p \to (q \to r)$$ which means something quite different. And to conclude $r$ given the latter, you'd need to invoke both the truth of $p$ and the truth of $q$.

share|improve this answer
this one is more convincing. thanks – ήλιος Nov 29 '12 at 8:51

$J\Rightarrow K$ means that when $J$ is true, $K$ must be true as well, so, yes, this would be a reasonable deduction given $J$.

share|improve this answer
But does not I=>J=>K mean I=>(J=>K). But we do not know if I is true!!! So we do not know if J=>K is true, right? – ήλιος Nov 28 '12 at 18:55
1  
If I were not true, $I \implies (J \implies K)$ would be true vacuously (in classical logic). – Johannes Kloos Nov 28 '12 at 19:00
Thank You....... – ήλιος Nov 28 '12 at 19:36
True, if $I$ is false, $I \to (J \to K)$ is true (assuming the conditional is truth-functional). But so what? That fact is no help at all if the aim to establish the truth of $K$ ... – Peter Smith Nov 28 '12 at 22:21
I took this to mean $I \Rightarrow J$ and $J \Rightarrow K$, but you raise a good point. There was some ambiguity in the question and I answered quickly without considering this alternative viewpoint. – andybenji Nov 28 '12 at 22:54

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.