Talk:Implication
(Difference between revisions)
(Whoops, i think i meant possibility not probability) |
(→Certainty of outcomes Vs possibility of outcomes?) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'm sill a little new to this whole wiki editing thing so i thought i'd better make it a discussion rather than put my foot in it by changing the page willy-nilly. | I'm sill a little new to this whole wiki editing thing so i thought i'd better make it a discussion rather than put my foot in it by changing the page willy-nilly. | ||
Where you've written "if P is false, then P → Q is true." would it not be more accurate to say "if P is false, then P → Q may still be true."? after all, if (P), or (P and Q) are both false as per the last two rows in the table, we don't necessarily know that P → Q is true, just that it might be true and that we have insufficient data to rule it out. --[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 20:04, 7 November 2009 (CST) | Where you've written "if P is false, then P → Q is true." would it not be more accurate to say "if P is false, then P → Q may still be true."? after all, if (P), or (P and Q) are both false as per the last two rows in the table, we don't necessarily know that P → Q is true, just that it might be true and that we have insufficient data to rule it out. --[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 20:04, 7 November 2009 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think I know where you're going with this... | ||
| + | |||
| + | :'''Material implication''' explores the possibility of Q and ¬Q in the presence of P and ¬P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :'''Logical implication''' explores the causative effect of P and ¬P on Q and ¬Q. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :The information and example is attempting to explain both material and logical implication in the context of material implication alone. Thus, the article as a whole could seem to be saying ¬P ⇒ (P ⇒ Q), which is false. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :{| class="wikitable" | ||
| + | | colspan="2" | | ||
| + | | colspan="2" | '''Material Implication''' | ||
| + | | colspan="2" | '''Logical Implication''' | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! colspan="2" | | ||
| + | ! P → Q | ||
| + | ! | ||
| + | ! P ⇒ Q | ||
| + | ! | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | P | ||
| + | | Q | ||
| + | | '''Valid''' | ||
| + | | P demands Q | ||
| + | | '''Valid''' | ||
| + | | P causes Q | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | P | ||
| + | | ¬Q | ||
| + | | '''Invalid''' | ||
| + | | P prevents ¬Q | ||
| + | | '''Invalid''' | ||
| + | | P cannot cause ¬Q | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | ¬P | ||
| + | | Q | ||
| + | | '''Valid''' | ||
| + | | ¬P allows Q | ||
| + | | '''Invalid''' | ||
| + | | ¬P is not the cause of Q | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | ¬P | ||
| + | | ¬Q | ||
| + | | '''Valid''' | ||
| + | | ¬P allows ¬Q | ||
| + | | '''Invalid''' | ||
| + | | ¬P is not the cause of ¬Q | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | colspan="6" style="text-align: center; font-size: 80%" | ¬P allows either Q or ¬Q, but does not cause either. | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | :You could explain the difference between the two, and perhaps even include the chart/info to what I just wrote. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Another level of confusion for the already confused creationists :) --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 15:52, 8 November 2009 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 16:52, 8 November 2009
Certainty of outcomes Vs possibility of outcomes?
I'm sill a little new to this whole wiki editing thing so i thought i'd better make it a discussion rather than put my foot in it by changing the page willy-nilly. Where you've written "if P is false, then P → Q is true." would it not be more accurate to say "if P is false, then P → Q may still be true."? after all, if (P), or (P and Q) are both false as per the last two rows in the table, we don't necessarily know that P → Q is true, just that it might be true and that we have insufficient data to rule it out. --Murphy 20:04, 7 November 2009 (CST)
- I think I know where you're going with this...
- Material implication explores the possibility of Q and ¬Q in the presence of P and ¬P.
- Logical implication explores the causative effect of P and ¬P on Q and ¬Q.
- The information and example is attempting to explain both material and logical implication in the context of material implication alone. Thus, the article as a whole could seem to be saying ¬P ⇒ (P ⇒ Q), which is false.
Material Implication Logical Implication P → Q P ⇒ Q P Q Valid P demands Q Valid P causes Q P ¬Q Invalid P prevents ¬Q Invalid P cannot cause ¬Q ¬P Q Valid ¬P allows Q Invalid ¬P is not the cause of Q ¬P ¬Q Valid ¬P allows ¬Q Invalid ¬P is not the cause of ¬Q ¬P allows either Q or ¬Q, but does not cause either.
- You could explain the difference between the two, and perhaps even include the chart/info to what I just wrote.
- Another level of confusion for the already confused creationists :) --Jaban 15:52, 8 November 2009 (CST)
