MandysNotes

Tuesday, 18 March 2014 00:00

Implication

By  Gideon
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Suppose we are looking for an animal, but all we know about it is that it either does not have a duck bill, or it is a mammal.

We write this as

"(not A) or B"

\[ = \left(  \lnot A \right) \cup B\]

\[ = A \rightarrow B.\]

AimB

 Now suppose that the animal turns out to have a duck bill: then it must be a mammal (in this case a platypus).

On the other hand, if it is not a mammal, then it cannot have a duck bill.

Now consider the set of animals that either are not mammals, or have duck bills.

This is the set "(not B) or A"

\[ = \left( \lnot B \right) \cup A\]

\[ = B \rightarrow A.\]

BimA

 

Now suppose that the animal is indeed a mammal: then it must have a duck bill.

On the other hand, suppose the animal does not have a duck bill: then it cannot be a mammal.

 

Read 1361 times Last modified on Sunday, 06 April 2014 19:34
More in this category: « Negation Equivalence »
Login to post comments

NOTRad