the entry on the table on the bottom left which states that p is false while q is true i don't understand why the statement p implies q is true, is true. I don't get it because if there's no info on q how can it be true? You can't know that p implies q is true automatically from the simple fact that no info is given on the truth of q "so thus it can't be false".
I don't get it or is the automatic default for any "unknown" "tied" propositions always true?
It's just like saying if i go for a run, then i do it on monday this is in the form
because going for a run is a sufficient cause for doing it on monday however simply because it is monday does not mean that you will always go for a run
now p is going for a run and q is of course on a monday
so if p is false then you do not go for a run and if q is true then it's a monday
then if you do not go for a run then it's a monday
the truth of that statement that if you do not go for a run then it's monday can't be true because p is false. now i can understand int he table inthe link that if both a false such that the statement reads if you do not go for a run then it is not monday is defo true it makes sense and pretty much is true because if you are not running then it is not a monday. Bc running is a sufficient cause for it being a monday to if you reverse it and make it false then it makes sense.
However determining whether the statement that if you don't run then it's monday can't possibly be true as for the day to be a monday the sufficient reason is that you go for a run. So then if you don't run then it ain't a monday. So how can that statement be true?
I'm not sure i can think of any other way to put it but i can't seem to convince myself otherwise unless there's a fact that it's assumed that all "tied" statements that could be either true or false are all automatically true. It just doesn't make sense to me can someone explain?