4
$\begingroup$

There is this lemma: Let $\Sigma\subset \textrm{Prop}(A)$ and $p, q \in \textrm{Prop}(A)$. Then $\Sigma\models p \implies \Sigma\models p\vee q$. I can't figure out a counterexample for the opposite implication ($\textrm{Prop(A)}$ denotes the set of propositions and $A$ is a set of propositional atoms.

Thanks for help.

-pizet

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

Let $q=\lnot p$.${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is the smallest complete answer, I have seen in the site, Andre. However, that "Let" could be also ommitted. ;-) +1 $\endgroup$
    – Mikasa
    Apr 13, 2013 at 5:21
  • $\begingroup$ There have been shorter answers, a famous one by did, for example. About the suggestion to let go of let, I think one is not supposed to start a sentence with math symbols. $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2013 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Yes. you are right. We cannot start such that in Maths at least. $\endgroup$
    – Mikasa
    Apr 13, 2013 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ @BabakS. There is math.stackexchange.com/a/74383/462 and math.stackexchange.com/a/180649/462 (and look at the comments on that one.) $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2013 at 15:24
4
$\begingroup$

$${\bf \Sigma \models p \lor q \overset{?}\implies \Sigma \models p }\tag{${\bf converse}$}$$

What if $\;p\;$ is false and $\;q\;$ is true?: Suppose, e.g., $$\bf \text{ Suppose}\;\;\; q \;= \;\lnot p$$

$\quad$ Then your stated lemma: $\;\Sigma\models p \implies \Sigma\models p\vee q\;$ certainly holds.

But its converse (highlighted) certainly fails to hold.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, it's quite clear. $\endgroup$
    – pizet
    Apr 12, 2013 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ @amWhy: Yes, very clear amd it is nice to get that feedback from OP! +1 $\endgroup$
    – Amzoti
    Apr 13, 2013 at 2:29

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.