1
$\begingroup$

I am currently just being introduced to the concept of logic in mathematics and my lecturer was talking about "if...then" statements.

For example, for some statements $P$ and $Q$, "if $P$ then $Q$".

I think sufficiency is quite intuitive, but why do we say that $Q$ is a necessary condition for $P$? Wikipedia provides one reason to be that it is impossible to have $P$ without $Q$, but why can't I have $P$ standalone? I mean, it is a statement in itself after all, right? Would it not make sense if I just wrote a $P$ down as a sentence? Why does $Q$ have to exist for $P$ to exist?

Perhaps if I can be provided with a detailed explanation, as well as an intuitive one, that will be nice :)

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If $Q$ is false , then $P$ cannot be true , since then the implication $P\implies Q$ would be false. So, $P$ can only be true, if $Q$ is true, in other words, $Q$ must necessarily be true, or in short, is necessary. $\endgroup$ – Peter Jan 25 '20 at 8:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter thank you so much :) $\endgroup$ – Ethan Mark Jan 25 '20 at 9:37
1
$\begingroup$

If $\underbrace {one\space is\space the\space strongest\space man\space alive}_P$ $\underbrace{then}_{\implies}$ $\underbrace{one\space is\space strong.}_Q$

Because one can't be the strongest if one isn't strong.

Imagine these two statements:

  1. There exists a strongest man in the world.
  2. There exists no man that is strong.

I hope this makes the contradiction obvious.

And also that argument from Peter in the comments, very important thing.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your insight! This makes sense! $\endgroup$ – Ethan Mark Jan 25 '20 at 9:37
1
$\begingroup$

We are told $P\implies Q$.

There are $4$ hypothetical possibilities.

  1. $P$ is not true and $Q$ is not true.

This could happen.

  1. $P$ is not true and $Q$ is true.

The could happen.

  1. $P$ is true and $Q$ is not true.

This can not happen. We we told $P\implies Q$ so if we have $P$ we must have $Q$ be true. This is just not possible.

  1. $P$ is tru and $Q$ is true.

Now in every single case where $P$ is true we had to have $Q$ also be true. So.... $Q$ is necessary for $P$.

That's all.

.....

but why can't I have P standalone?

Well, what does $Q$ do, while we have $P$ stand by itself? We can ignore $Q$ and not look at $Q$ but and we can choose to not invite $Q$ to our party, but we can't make $Q$ ... disappear. Now matter what we do with $P$, $Q$ is still going to exist and either be true or false even if you don't look at it.

So we have $P$ at our party and there it is... being true. That's fine but someone might wonder "Hmm, I wonder what $Q$ is doing" and everyone else can ignore $Q$ but, $Q$ will be sitting on the other side of the hill doing it's $Q$ thing of being true or false. So someone wonders over to check on $Q$ and what does she see?

Well, $P\implies Q$ so, lo and behold, $Q$ is being true. It doesn't matter if we look at $Q$. So long as $P\implies Q$ then if we ever have $P$, it will always be that $Q$ is true, whether we look at it or not.

And since every time $P$ is true, $Q$ is true, we can't have $P$ be true without $Q$ being true (even if we stick $Q$ is a little cottage three thousand miles away and pass a law that no-one is allowed to check in on him-- $Q$ will just sit there being true all by himself unnoticed and unloved), so $Q$ is necessary for $P$ to be true.

$\endgroup$

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.