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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let's say I have a statement: if p then q.
The converse would be: if q then p.
The inverse would be: if not p then not q.
The contraposition would be: if not q then not p.
What would you call the following? if not p then q.

share|cite|improve this question
negation of converse? – hjpotter92 Oct 3 '13 at 3:00
I don't think it has a name. – Trevor Wilson Oct 3 '13 at 3:31
@hjpotter92 can you show it to us how it's called negation of converse? – b16db0 Oct 3 '13 at 4:07
@Rustyn One reaason I could think of why I would not call it "p or q" is when the statement "p implies q" has a name, e.g. the "p or q" of principle x – b16db0 Oct 3 '13 at 4:20

There's no name for it, because there's no real connection between them. The inverse and converse exist because they still assert a direct correlation between p and q; it's just that, as opposed to the regular and contrapositive forms, the condition for failure is reversed.

On the other hand, "if not p then q" is a completely different assertion.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm not sure what you mean by "correlation" here. For any definition I can think of, if $p$ and $q$ are correlated then so are $\neg p$ and $q$. – Trevor Wilson Oct 3 '13 at 3:29
There is no reason why $\lnot p$ and $q$ must be correlated if $p$ and $q$ are correlated. All four of the related forms (regular, contrapositive, converse, and inverse) state that $p$ and $q$ should be true simultaneously under some specific condition. There is no inherent correlation between $\lnot p$ and $q$, because $\lnot p$ does not imply, or even suggest, anything about $q$ when $p$ implies $q$. – Glen O Oct 3 '13 at 3:50
@GlenO can you cite a specific condition for example? – b16db0 Oct 3 '13 at 4:22
This is what I'm saying: in the truth tables for the regular, contrapositive, converse, and inverse, if both p and q are true, then the statement is true. Similarly, if both p and q are false, then the statement is true. On the other hand, with "if not p then q", if both p and q are true, the statement is false. – Glen O Oct 3 '13 at 4:25
So, "if it is hot, then I'm sweating" is the regular statement. A reasonable statement. "If I'm not sweating, then it is not hot" is also a reasonable statement, the contrapositive. "If it is not hot, then I'm not sweating" is a statement with less accuracy, as it is possible for me to be sweating when it's not hot, and similarly for "if I'm sweating, then it is hot" - but they're mostly consistent with the original observation that heat and sweating are related. But "if it is not hot, then I'm sweating" is a completely different statement. – Glen O Oct 3 '13 at 4:27

$$ p \Rightarrow q \equiv \lnot p \lor q $$

$$ \lnot p \Rightarrow q \equiv p\lor q $$ It is logically equivalent to "$p$ or $q$"

share|cite|improve this answer
That's not really a name for it so much as a statement that happens to be equivalent to it in classical logic. I don't think the equivalence holds intuitionistically, so it probably wouldn't be good to call the one a "name" for the other. – Trevor Wilson Oct 3 '13 at 3:31
@TrevorWilson can you expound what you mean by intuitionistically? – b16db0 Oct 3 '13 at 4:16
@bimboxX I mean that, assuming $\neg p \implies q$, it seems like one might need to use the law of excluded middle ($p \vee \neg p$) to conclude $p \vee q$. – Trevor Wilson Oct 3 '13 at 4:32
Ah, so it's like you have to "cross a bridge" to get to "p or q". But the two statements are still equal, right? I'm just thinking if there's a name for "p or q" in relation to "not p implies q" then I could gladly use it. – b16db0 Oct 3 '13 at 4:46

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.