3
$\begingroup$

I am confused about the difference between ↔ (biconditional iff) and ≡ (logical equivalence). For instance, p→q can be rewritten as ∼p∨q. Would it be correct to say p→q↔∼p∨q or p→q≡∼p∨q?

Secondly, is ⇔ another symbol for ≡?

Finally, what's the difference between → and ⇒?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You should look in that book to see what the symbols mean. For example, it could be that $\rightarrow$ combines two wffs into a new wff, while $\Rightarrow$ is a relation between wffs. $\endgroup$ – GEdgar Sep 17 '17 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ The issue is not with the symbols but with the concepts. We have a connective: the biconditional that can produce a "complex" sentence (or formula) from simpler ones: $p \leftrightarrow q$. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 18 '17 at 6:54
  • $\begingroup$ And we have the relation of logical (or semantical) equivalence between formulas. Logical equivalence is different from the biconditional, although the two concepts are closely related; in a nutshell: $p \leftrightarrow q$ is a tautology iff $p$ is logically equivalent to $q$. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 18 '17 at 6:57
7
$\begingroup$

In short, $P \leftrightarrow Q$ is statement that could be either true or false. $P \equiv Q$ means that $P \leftrightarrow Q$ is always a true biconditional (so, $P$ and $Q$ have the same truth value no matter what).

So, one could say that $\neg (P \vee Q) \equiv \neg P \wedge \neg Q$ (DeMorgan's) but you typically wouldn't write $\neg (P \vee Q) \leftrightarrow (\neg P \wedge \neg Q)$.

The arrow $\Rightarrow$ usually is slang for "implies" but different people use it differently. The arrow $\Leftrightarrow$ is usually treated the same way as $\leftrightarrow$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

In case you can use a somewhat philosophical explanation: $\leftrightarrow$ is a logical operator within statements, while $\equiv$ serves to state an equivalence between statements and thus may be thought of as meta-logical.

As Randall explained, $P \leftrightarrow Q$ is a statement $-$ one statement and a logical statement. The $\leftrightarrow$ will cause it to be true under certain truth value distributions for $P$ and $Q$. The same applies to $\neg(P \vee Q) \leftrightarrow (\neg P \wedge \neg Q)$.

For $\neg(P \vee Q) \equiv (\neg P \wedge \neg Q)$ however, you compare two truth tables, the one of $\neg(P \vee Q)$ and $(\neg P \wedge \neg Q)$, two distinct statements. If and only if both are true exclusively for the same truth value distributions, the equivalence applies and so the meta-logical statement $\neg(P \vee Q) \equiv (\neg P \wedge \neg Q)$ is true.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Consider this analogy. You wouldn't say the following:

Prove that 3 + 5.

You might instead say this:

Prove that 3 = 5.


Similarly, following doesn't make sense:

Prove that $p \leftrightarrow q$.

Instead one of these would be correct:

Prove that $p \leftrightarrow q$ is always true.
or
Prove that $p \equiv q$.

$\endgroup$

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.