Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm wondering if using a truth table to prove

    p\Rightarrow q \equiv \neg p \vee q

    would be circular logic?


    My guess is no but when I think of the truth table for p\Rightarrow q, I think "either q is true or p is false", so I can fill in the table using this. But that's what I'm trying to prove in the first place.

    So maybe my thought process is circular but my proof isn't?
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 0-))
    I'm wondering if using a truth table to prove

    p\Rightarrow q \equiv \neg p \vee q

    would be circular logic?


    My guess is no but when I think of the truth table for p\Rightarrow q, I think "either q is true or p is false", so I can fill in the table using this. But that's what I'm trying to prove in the first place.

    So maybe my thought process is circular but my proof isn't?
    Depends how you've defined the "or" symbol. What have you defined?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smaug123)
    Depends how you've defined the "or" symbol. What have you defined?
    I'm new to logic so my only definition would be with a truth table,

    p, q, (p V q)
    T, T, T
    T, F, T
    F, T, T
    F, F, F

    Can you explain how the definition would change whether the proof is circular?
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 0-))
    I'm new to logic so my only definition would be with a truth table,

    p, q, (p V q)
    T, T, T
    T, F, T
    F, T, T
    F, F, F

    Can you explain how the definition would change whether the proof is circular?
    In my course, we defined p \vee q to be (\lnot p) \Rightarrow q. It's conceivable that you could have defined "implies" in terms of "or" or something.

    If you defined "or" as a truth table, then your reasoning is fine. If we let v be a valuation on a language in which p, q are propositions, then v(p \Rightarrow q) is 1 unless v(p) = 1, v(q) = 0, when it's 0: that is, 1 unless a true thing is implying a false thing. v(p \vee q) is defined in the same way as v((\lnot p) \Rightarrow q), according to your definition, so that's a proof that they are indeed the same.

    Feel free to ignore this next paragraph unless you've heard of the Completeness Theorem.

    It appears that you've defined "or" in terms of what valuations do to the statement, by the way: that's implicitly relying on the Completeness Theorem, which states that a proposition of first-order logic is semantically true iff it is syntactically true. (That is, "I can examine how the statement behaves as a truth table, and that tells me about precisely whether the statement can be proved by symbol manipulation".) Depends how you've defined "implies", as well.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.