Now supose he tells you that the animal is duck-billed; that is, he tells you that \(A\) is true.

Therefore the animal he is thinking of must be in the green part of the figure below, and cannot be in the red part.

Putting these results together we see that we must have:

That is, the animal must be both duck-billed and a mammal (it must be a platypus).

Now suppose that your friend tells you that the animal is not a mammal.

That is, he tells you that \(B\) is false.

That means that the animal must be in the green area in the figure below, and cannot be in the red area.

Combining this with the fact that \(A \to B\) is true:

We see that both \(A\) and \(B\) must be false.

What if your friend tells you that \(A \to B\) is true, but that \(A\) is false?

That is, that if the animal is duck-billed then it is a mammal, and that the animal is not duck-billed.

There are two possibilities in this case:

First, the animal could be a mammal.

Second, it is possible to have the situation already considered, such that \(A \to B\) is true, but both \(A\) and \(B\) are false

Thus we see that knowing that \(A \to B\) is true, and that \(A\) is false, is not enough to decide whether or not \(B\) is true.

Finally, suppose that your friend is lying about \( A \to B\) being true;

that is, assume that \(A \to B = ( \lnot A) \cup B \) is false.

That means that the animal must be in the green area in the figure below, and cannot be in the red area.

We see that in this case \(A\) is true and \(B\) is false.

Putting all these results together we obtain the truth table for implication:

Note that \(A \to B\) is true unless \(A\) is true and \(B\) is false.