Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Here's the picture of the question: enter image description here

How does it go from p v ~q to ~p -> ~q?

share|improve this question
1  
one way to convince yourself of this is to construct truth tables for both statements and check if theyre equivalent –  MSEoris Dec 16 '12 at 19:38
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 12 down vote accepted

$$p\lor \lnot q$$ $$ \equiv \lnot\lnot p \lor \lnot q$$ $$\equiv \lnot p \rightarrow \lnot q $$


This is simply applying the rule that $a \rightarrow b \;\equiv \; \lnot a \lor b$,

but in reverse: $\lnot a \lor b \equiv a\rightarrow b$.

In this case, $a$ happens to be $\lnot p$, and $b$ happens to be $\lnot q$.

To double-check, and convince yourself, truth-tables come in handy:

enter image description here


One last note:

$$(a \rightarrow b) \equiv (\lnot b \rightarrow \lnot a)$$

The right-hand side is called the contrapositve of the left-hand side of the equivalence; they are equivalent expressions.

Knowing this, one can conclude, directly, that the converse of $p \rightarrow q$ is equivalent to the inverse of $p \rightarrow q$: $(q\rightarrow p) \equiv (\lnot p \rightarrow \lnot q)$.

share|improve this answer
    
do share, how did you TeX such a pretty looking truth table :) –  MSEoris Dec 16 '12 at 19:56
2  
@MSEoris Compliments go to WolframAlpha! –  amWhy Dec 16 '12 at 20:01
    
I see, thanks so much. :) –  Doug Smith Dec 16 '12 at 20:05
    
The "in reverse" part doesn't come as logically coherent, since any equivalence means you can replace either side of the equivalence for the other one. Equivalences don't have "handedness" one might say. The "in reverse" part might read better if it said something like "replacing the right-hand side of the equivalence with the left-hand side". –  Doug Spoonwood Dec 17 '12 at 4:26
1  
@amWhy: Beautifully formatted table - love the color! Oh look, another bade! :-) +1 –  Amzoti May 2 '13 at 1:04
show 1 more comment

An easy way to remember what $p \Rightarrow q$ means is this: if the implication is true, either the conclusion is true, or the premise is false. That is, $$p\Rightarrow q \equiv \lnot p \lor q$$ So $p \lor \lnot q \equiv \lnot \lnot p \lor \lnot q \equiv \lnot p \Rightarrow \lnot q$

share|improve this answer
add comment

We'd half to know more about this particular text to know how the author(s) did this. That said, following for example Lukasiewicz's introductory text on mathematical logic, you can define (p$\lor$q) as ($\lnot$p$\implies$ q), since they are logically equivalent... (p$\lor$q)$\equiv$($\lnot$p$\implies$ q).

Then from that equivalence just uniformly substitute $\lnot$q for q, and you have (p$\lor$$\lnot$q)$\equiv$($\lnot$p$\implies$$\lnot$q).

share|improve this answer
    
Cpq==ANpq AND Apq==CNpq, with C as the material conditional, A as alternation, and N as negation (or more shortly... C==AN, A==CN). In other words, you can define alternation and the material conditional by Xpq==YNpq, where X does not equal Y, and X and Y belong to {C, A}. –  Doug Spoonwood Dec 17 '12 at 4:45
add comment

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.