home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.logic
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!frege!mclean
- From: mclean@itd.nrl.navy.mil (John McLean)
- Subject: Re: implication truth table
- Message-ID: <Bxvq70.CIA@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
- Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
- Reply-To: mclean@itd.nrl.navy.mil
- Organization: Information Technology Division, Naval Research Laboratory
- References: <1992Nov16.162733.1831@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:25:47 GMT
- Lines: 52
-
- From cmitchell@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil ()
- >My question is: WHY is the implication relation defined as it is?
-
-
- One justification for having
-
- A B A->B
- T T T
- T F F
- F T T
- F F T
-
- as the truth table for A->B is that there is no better alternative.
- The first two lines are noncontroversial. This leaves us with
- only three alternatives for truth tables.
-
- (1) A B A->B
- T T T
- T F F
- F T F
- F F F
-
- (2) A B A->B
- T T T
- T F F
- F T T
- F F F
-
- (3) A B A->B
- T T T
- T F F
- F T F
- F F T
-
- (1) equates A->B with A&B; (2) equates A->B with B; and (3)
- equates A->B with A<->B. Hence, all the alternative make
- A->B redundant.
-
- A->B is not meant to capture the English "if..then.." completely. What
- we really want to do is to prevent someone from denying B if A and A->B
- are both true; from accepting A->B if A is true and B is false; and
- from either accepting or denying B solely because A->B is true if A is
- false. The truth table for A->B does this. It does have the
- unfortunate consequence of making assertions such as "If you eat that
- mushroom, you'll die" usually true (since the person addressed will
- rarely take the chance).
-
- A good discussion of the relationship between formal logic and
- English can be found in Paul Grice's "Logic and Conversation."
-
- John McLean
-
-