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.

Every lecture that I watched on mathematical logic and my textbook say that
$P \Rightarrow Q$ has the same meaning as $\text{"If $P$ then $Q$"}$ which has the same meaning as $\text{$Q$ only if $P$}$.

How does " $\text{if $P$ then $Q$}$ " have the same meaning as " $\text{$Q$ only if $P$}$ ?

i think that is not true. For instance, let $P = \text{a human $x$ killed human $y$}$

and $Q = \text{the human $x$ will be arrested}$.

Then $P \Rightarrow Q$ means $(\text{a human $x$ killed human $y$}) \Rightarrow (\text{the human $x$ will be arrested})$
which means

$$\text{if a human $x$ killed human $y$, then the human $x$ will be arrested} \quad (1)$$

but if we say ,

$$\text{a human $x$ will be arrested, only if the human $x$ killed human $y$} \quad (2)$$

then the meaning of (1) differs from (2). Statement (2) says that the human $x$ will be arrested in only one case which is killing $y$.

share|improve this question
+1 Nice question, Fawzy –  Babak S. Aug 25 '13 at 7:10
It may help to consult my answer at <math.stackexchange.com/questions/181178/…;. –  Law Area 51 Proposal - Commit Aug 25 '13 at 7:33
It has already been explained that you have probably misread your textbook. One additional comment: I personally translate “Q only if P” in my head to “if not P then not Q”, which of course is equivalent (well, in standard logic) to “if Q then P”. –  Carsten Schultz Oct 28 '13 at 9:48
It's not. You probably misread your textbook slightly. –  columbus8myhw Sep 1 at 23:05

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I think you're mixing up the difference between:

  • $p\;$ if $\;q$, which IS translated $q\rightarrow p$, (and is equivalent to $q \rightarrow p\;$, versus
  • $p\;$ only if $\;q,\;$ which is translated $p \rightarrow q \;\equiv\;$ "if $p$ then $q$".

They are completely different statements, as "only if" $\;\not\equiv\;$ "if".

The "only if" is a "cue" that $q$ is a necessary condition for $p$. When only "if" appears, as in "$p$ if $q$", then the "if," alone, is a cue that $q$ is a sufficient condition for $p$

$$\text{(Sufficient condition)}\quad \rightarrow \quad \text{(Necessary condition)}$$

See also this thread and the corresponding answers which is consistent with the logical translations of many sorts of "if $p$ then $q$" statements, as Zev cites, and there's some scattered explanations as to "why" these are logically equivalent statements.

Also, search math.se for "material implication" and/or "if...then...". This material implication is perhaps one of the most confusing or unintuitive of the basic logical connectives students encounter.

share|improve this answer
this website , math.se , is not in english , i think i understand this mixing now . thanx :) –  Maths Lover Feb 22 '13 at 14:57

I lighted upon an answer by virtue of http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=adec42ba412d779cfff53d83b02ab8c4&t=635114#post4068965.

I agree that "only if" is the most confusing of the group. I think of it this way.

Say $p \implies q$. The only way this can be false is if ♦ either p is false, ♦ or q is true.

Say p is true. If q is false that makes the implication false.
So if p is true, then q must be true.

In toto, if p => q is true, then p can be true only if q is true.

Example: Remember, if 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope. That's true.

So 2 + 2 = 5 only if I am the Pope. Can't be any other way.

share|improve this answer

It does not have the same meaning and any texts that say that they do (which I doubt there are many of; more likely you are misinterpreting) are wrong.

$(P\implies Q)$ has the truth table $$\begin{array}{c|c|c|} & P=T & P=F\\\hline Q=T & T & T\\\hline Q=F & F & T\\\hline \end{array}$$ whereas "$Q$ only if $P$", i.e. $(\lnot P\implies \lnot Q)$, has truth table $$\begin{array}{c|c|c|} & P=T & P=F\\\hline Q=T & T & F\\\hline Q=F & T & T\\\hline \end{array}$$

Here is the relevant passage from the book you cited (p.25):

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
for instance , Mathematical logic by Angelo Margaris mentioned that , and i heared the same thing in many online lectures on internet . –  Maths Lover Feb 22 '13 at 13:40
@MrWhy: See my edit. –  Zev Chonoles Feb 22 '13 at 13:47
The second option quoted there, that "P only if Q" being the same as $\,P\rightarrow Q\,$ is one of the most confusing literal equivalences in english...and not only for people not having english as first language. There was a pretty heated up debate about this in another site some 8-9 years ago and the more or less general consensus was that this option should be ruled out to avoid mess...alas, it hasn't or, at least, no completely. –  DonAntonio Feb 22 '13 at 14:19
@MrWhy: You're still not reading the picture carefully enough. It says that "$P$ only if $Q$" means exactly the same as "if $P$ then $Q$". Yet another way of saying the same (which may make the connection clearer is) "$P$ only when $Q$". "$Q$ only if $P$" means $Q\to P$, which by contraposition is the same as $\neg P\to\neg Q$. –  Henning Makholm Feb 22 '13 at 14:21
Would the downvoter care to comment on how this answer needs improvement? –  Zev Chonoles Feb 22 '13 at 15:00

Your Answer


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.