1
$\begingroup$

I have the following statement: Let $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$. If $a \leq b_1$, for every $b_1>b$, then $a \leq b$. I have put it into logical notation in the following way: $\forall a,b,b_1 \in \mathbb{R} \, ((b_1>b \to a \leq b_1) \to a \leq b)$.

My question is: if I want to write this implication as its contrapositive, how would the quantifiers change and why? I know that the contrapositive is $a>b \rightarrow (b_1>b \land a > b_1)$, but I am not sure how this would be quantified to get a logically equivalent statement.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

My question is, if I want to write this implication as its contrapositive, how would the quantifiers change and why?

They don't change.   An implication is equivalent to its contrapositive (in first order classic logic); meaning that they always have the same truth value for the same atoms.   Thus when one is universally true, so too will be the other.

$$\forall a\forall b\forall c~\big(P(a,b,c)\to Q(a,b,c)\big) ~\iff~ \forall a\forall b\forall c~\big(\neg Q(a,b,c)\to\neg P(a,b,c)\big)$$

$\endgroup$

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.