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.

The present question is about a double implication.

I have the following implications:

$(a)\implies (b)\implies ((c)$ or $(a))$

Can I deduce that $(b)\implies(a)$ only?

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Although truth tables provide a systematic approach to problems like this, it's often more efficient to just think about "what can go wrong?" --- in this case, how (if at all) could the assumptions $(a\implies b)$ and $(b\implies(c\lor a))$ be true while the proposed conclusion $(b\implies a)$ is false? Falsehood of an implication is quite restrictive; it requires both that the antecedent is true and that the consequent is false, so in this case, to falsify the proposed conclusion, you'd need $b$ true and $a$ false. That automatically makes the first hypothesis, $(a\implies b)$, true. As for the second hypothesis, its antecedent $b$ is true, so the only way the implication could be true is for the consequent to be true. In this case, you'd need $(c\lor a)$ to be true. Since $a$ is false, you'd need $c$ true. In this way you find a truth assignment, "$a$ false and both $b$ and $c$ true," that makes your hypotheses both true and the proposed conclusion false, so the inference is not correct.

share|improve this answer
add comment

$(a)\implies (b)\implies ((c)$ or $(a))$

Can I deduce that $(b)\implies(a)$ only?

No.

What you have is the following:

$$(a) \implies (b)\tag{1}$$ $$(b)\implies (c\lor a) \equiv \lnot b \lor c \lor a\tag{2}$$

In (2) I use the equivalence $p\implies q \equiv \lnot p \lor q$

From (2), It may very well have that each $\lnot b$ is true, and $a$ is true, and $c$ is true. It may very well be that we have only $\lnot b$ is true, or only $a$ is true, or only $c$ is true. Or it may very well be that we have only $\lnot b\lor c\equiv b\implies c$ is true. Or, we may have that $\lnot b \lor a \equiv b\implies a$ is true. Or both these last cases.

In short, $b\implies a$ is satisfiable (possible), but it is not logically necessary/valid.

\begin{array}{a|b|c|aVc|rem|} \hline a&b&c&a\vee c& \\ \hline F&F&F&F&\\ F&F&T&T\\ F&T&F&F\\ F&T&T&T& \text{Here, b $\rightarrow (a \lor c)$ is true, but $b \rightarrow a$ is false.}\\ T&F&F&T\\ T&F&T&T\\ T&T&F&T\\ T&T&T&T\\ \end{array}

There's no logical justification for concluding it must be the case that $b\implies a$.

**However, if you know that $a \equiv \lnot c$, then that counterexample is ruled out, because in the above indicated counterexample, we have $a = c = T$.


Now, if you also have the premise $$\lnot c\tag{3},$$ then $(3)$ together with $(2)$ imply that $\lnot b \lor a \equiv b\implies a$, by the disjunctive syllogism $\lnot b \lor c \lor a \equiv (\lnot b \lor a) \lor c$:

$\;\;\;(\lnot b \lor a) \lor c$
$\;\;\;\lnot c$
$\therefore (\lnot b \lor a)\equiv b\implies a$.

share|improve this answer
1  
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by converse of (a). If you have that $\lnot c$, then you can conclude $b \implies a$ –  amWhy Dec 28 '12 at 17:12
    
Yes, this is the case. Thank you very much. –  ZE1 Dec 28 '12 at 17:14
    
Just wanted to emphasize that "It may very well be that b⟹c" is not equivalent to "b⟹c" –  alancalvitti Dec 28 '12 at 17:15
    
Not a problem. $\lnot c$ together with $\lnot b \lor a \lor c$ gives you $\lnot b \lor a$ which is equivalent to $b\implies a$. –  amWhy Dec 28 '12 at 17:16
    
@ amWhy: Sorry, this is an error when clicking in the page. Your solution is perfect. –  ZE1 Feb 13 '13 at 20:49
show 1 more comment

See a truth table. It is often helpful.

$$ \begin{array}{a|b|c|aVc|rem|} \hline a&b&c&a\vee c& \\ \hline F&F&F&F&\\ F&F&T&T\\ F&T&F&F\\ F&T&T&T& \text{Here, b $\implies$a $\vee$ c is true but b $\implies$a is not.}\\ T&F&F&T\\ T&F&T&T\\ T&T&F&T\\ T&T&T&T\\ \end{array} $$ Note that False can imply Truth but truth cannot imply False.

So your statement is SATISFIABLE but not VALID.

$\textbf{Edit}$ Edited in response to some silly mistake.

share|improve this answer
1  
The OP is not asking about $a \lor b$ or $b \lor a \equiv \lnot b\implies a$ Your truth table does not apply to this question. –  amWhy Dec 28 '12 at 17:34
    
Still I have some trouble: Now, if (c) is the logical converse of (a). Then the implication holds. right! –  ZE1 Dec 28 '12 at 18:00
    
Yes. If that precondition is settled, what you state is true. But your statement in OPost explicitly does not state the condition that c is converse of a. If by that you mean if a then ¬c or ¬a then c. But that is not standard language. Converse actually means something else. –  007resu Dec 28 '12 at 18:02
    
For what converse actually means see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_(logic) –  007resu Dec 28 '12 at 18:05
1  
If a = -c, then we have $b \implies (\lnot c \lor c)$, which is true no matter what the truth of $c$. So my original post still holds: concluding $b \implies a$ is satisfiable, but not valid. –  amWhy Dec 28 '12 at 18:23
show 2 more comments

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.