A lecturer mentioned that a common mistake people make in assignments is the incorrect use of the implication notation, $\Rightarrow $. I would like to clarify the correct use of the symbol as I am responsible for marking some first year assignments this term, and have been advised to deduct marks if students make this 'mistake'.

The symbol should be used, I am told, only when making a logical statement $A\Rightarrow B $, i.e. when the truth value is unknown. In other situations where we know $A $ is true, we should use the therefore symbol $\therefore $. So, for example, a mark would need to be deducted for the following answer:

Q: If $(a_n),(b_n) $ are positive, bounded real sequences, then $(a_nb_n) $ is also bounded.

A: $(a_n),(b_n) $ bounded $\Rightarrow $ $a_n <A$ for some $A$ for all $n $, $b_n <B$ for some $B $ for all $n $ $\Rightarrow $ $a_nb_n <AB $ for all $n $ $\Rightarrow $ $(a_nb_n)$ is bounded.

A mark would be deducted since $(a_n),(b_n) $ bounded was a hypothesis of the question. However, I see this as pedantic, since if I add the following line to the proof then it will be correct:

And since $(a_n),(b_n) $ bounded is assumed, it follows that $(a_nb_n) $ is bounded.

Am I right to say that this makes the argument 100% correct? I will add that the line need not be added in the first place, because given the context (an assignment answer), it is clear that this is what the author intended.

  • $\begingroup$ I'd recommend speaking to the lecturer so that you are on the right page. You are effectively an employee of the lecturer and clarification of a task from your boss is normal in any workplace. $\endgroup$ – Ian Miller Oct 7 '16 at 10:56
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure you picked a good example? I'm as pedantic as they come and I see nothing wrong with a proof that looks like $A\implies B\implies C\implies D$. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Oct 7 '16 at 11:12
  • $\begingroup$ There was a similar longer proof in the handbook, with the note 'The implication sign is their only attempt at connecting statements and it is used incorrectly: “P ⇒ Q” means “if P then Q”, but we know the predicates are true. So we should use “thus”, “hence”, “therefore” etc.' $\endgroup$ – Szmagpie Oct 7 '16 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Szmagpie Some people use $\implies$ instead of "then", "therefore", etc. This is wrong. This isn't being done in the example you've given though. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Oct 7 '16 at 11:18
  • $\begingroup$ @GitGud I guess the motivation of my question is to compare the answers '$A\therefore B $' and '$A\implies B $, and $A$ is assumed, $\therefore B$'; then if they are equivalent, I argue that the latter half is redundant given the context, and as a result, $A\implies B $ is acceptable $\endgroup$ – Szmagpie Oct 7 '16 at 12:30

I would not deduct any marks for the first answer.

What is an implication? It simply says "If A is true, then B is true". This is symbolically written as $A \implies B$.

When the implication is false, there is some object having property $B$ that does not have property $A$.

In the implication in question, it is clear that the author knows the context he is working in, and does not need another redundant statement to clarify to a well-read instructor that he is aware of the context. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the logic of the question, I would detest a deduction of marks.


There's two ways to use $\Rightarrow$:

  1. As notation for the relevant function $\{0,1\}^2 \rightarrow \{0,1\}$.

  2. As a syntactic ingredient in proofs.

Your lecturer is saying she doesn't like (2), which is fair enough. I wouldn't go as far as to call it "wrong"; that's too strong of a word in this context.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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