Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I am trying to understand what “$p$ implies $q$” means. I read that $p$ is a sufficient condition for $q$, and $q$ is a necessary condition for $p$. Further from Wikipedia,

A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true. Formally, a statement $P$ is a necessary condition of a statement $Q$ if $Q$ implies $P,\quad (Q \Rightarrow P)$.

A sufficient condition is one that, if satisfied, assures the statement's truth. Formally, a statement $P$ is a sufficient condition of a statement $Q$ if $P$ implies $Q,\quad (P \Rightarrow Q)$.

Now what I am stuck with is that if $P$ is not satisfied will the condition still always be true?

share|cite|improve this question
This has been thoroughly answered in several previous questions, albeit not always under the exact question. Here is one – Asaf Karagila Sep 4 '11 at 9:22
You may also be interested in looking at this thread. – t.b. Sep 4 '11 at 12:02
up vote 8 down vote accepted

This is a simple matter answered by the truth table of $\Rightarrow$:

$$\begin{array}{ c | c || c | } P & Q & P\Rightarrow Q \\ \hline \text T & \text T & \text T \\ \text T & \text F & \text F \\ \text F & \text T & \text T \\ \text F & \text F & \text T \end{array}$$

This shows that when $P$ is false, the implication is true. Note that this is the definition of the table, there is no need to prove it. This is how $\Rightarrow$ is defined to work.

As an example, here is one:

$$\textbf{If it is raining then there are clouds in the sky}$$

In this case $P=$It is raining, and $Q=$There are clouds in the sky. Note that $P$ is sufficient to conclude $Q$, and $Q$ is necessary for $P$. There is no rain without clouds, and if there are no clouds then there cannot be any rain.

However, note that $P$ is not necessary for $Q$. There could be light clouds without any rain, and there could be clouds of snow and blizzard (which is technically not rain).

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. In your answer the statement P is false, but as I read that p is not neccessary but sufficient for q then shouldn't it be true as q is true? – Fahad Uddin Sep 4 '11 at 9:41
@fahad: In my answer, $Q$ is necessary for $P$, and $P$ is sufficient for $Q$. – Asaf Karagila Sep 4 '11 at 9:46
@fahad: No; that $p$ is not necessary for $q$ means that $p$ need not be true for $q$ to be true. It is a sufficient but not necessary condition for you to get rich that you win the lottery. It may well be true that you get rich ($q$) even though you don't win the lottery ($\neg p$). – joriki Sep 4 '11 at 9:54
Note that there exist 15 other possibilities for the last column where each entry belongs to {T, F}. None of the other ones fit with the meaning of implication as well as this one. – Doug Spoonwood Sep 4 '11 at 15:13
@LePressentiment: This is commonly known as a typo. – Asaf Karagila Aug 28 '13 at 8:35

Once I read a classic example which I would like to share with you. A politician said......... p(If I Will win) q(I will cut down taxes by half) People will feel cheated only in the case when the politician actually won but taxes remained the same. In this case, q is FALSE but p is true so p->q become false. We are okay with the rest of cases/situation, so rest of combination of p and q this statement is TRUE.

Lets examine "p is not necessary but sufficient for q"................

There can be a case when this politician lose but taxes get reduced so for the reduction of taxes p is not necessary but sufficient...........

regarding "q is a necessary condition for p" we can say reduction in taxes is necessary after the victory of the politician else the entire statement of the politician will be false or we can say p->q will be false.

share|cite|improve this answer

One way implications like this don't put any restrictions on what the antecedent can be (P), only what the consequent (Q) can be. P can always be whatever, but Q NEEDS to be true IF P is true (Otherwise the statement "If P is true, then Q is true will be false). However, if P is false, the Q can be whatever.

share|cite|improve this answer

protected by Asaf Karagila Jan 16 '15 at 19:39

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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