Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A tautology in first-order logic is a sentence that can be obtained by taking a tautology of propositional logic and uniformly replacing each propositional variable by a first-order formula (one formula per propositional variable).
Formulas and are logically equivalent if and only if the statement of their material equivalence is a tautology. [ 2 ] The material equivalence of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} (often written as p ↔ q {\displaystyle p\leftrightarrow q} ) is itself another statement in the same object language as p {\displaystyle p} and q ...
In logic, a set of symbols is commonly used to express logical representation. The following table lists many common symbols, together with their name, how they should be read out loud, and the related field of mathematics.
With this premise, we also conclude that q=T, p∨q=T, etc. as shown by columns 9–15. The column-11 operator (IF/THEN), shows Modus ponens rule: when p→q=T and p=T only one line of the truth table (the first) satisfies these two conditions. On this line, q is also true. Therefore, whenever p → q is true and p is true, q must also be true.
Some of these connectives may be defined in terms of others: for instance, implication, p → q, may be defined in terms of disjunction and negation, as ¬p ∨ q; [74] and disjunction may be defined in terms of negation and conjunction, as ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q). [51]
Of its five connectives, {∧, ∨, →, ¬, ⊥}, only negation "¬" can be reduced to other connectives (see False (logic) § False, negation and contradiction for more). Neither conjunction, disjunction, nor material conditional has an equivalent form constructed from the other four logical connectives.
The proof of 2.1 is roughly as follows: "primitive idea" 1.08 defines p → q = ~p ∨ q. Substituting p for q in this rule yields p → p = ~p ∨ p. Since p → p is true (this is Theorem 2.08, which is proved separately), then ~p ∨ p must be true. 2.11 p ∨ ~p (Permutation of the assertions is allowed by axiom 1.4)
Tautological consequence can also be defined as ∧ ∧ ... ∧ → is a substitution instance of a tautology, with the same effect. [2]It follows from the definition that if a proposition p is a contradiction then p tautologically implies every proposition, because there is no truth valuation that causes p to be true and so the definition of tautological implication is trivially satisfied.