Well, Logically Speaking...
It's clear that the two statements:
a) Ann will go if it does not rain,
and
b) If it rains, Ann will not go
are not equivalent. Afterall, a) states that "p --> ~q" and b) states "q --> ~p", which is the inverse, and thus, the two statemtns are not logically equivalent.
a) Ann will go if it does not rain,
and
b) If it rains, Ann will not go
are not equivalent. Afterall, a) states that "p --> ~q" and b) states "q --> ~p", which is the inverse, and thus, the two statemtns are not logically equivalent.
posted by Jonny at 11:09 a.m.
1 Comments:
haha, i'm so out of it. at first i was gonna write that "yeah, the converse isn't necessarily always true cuz the contrapositive is", but then i re-read the post and said "wait a second, isn't that the contrapositive which should be true" - been way too long since phil379, math271, and my dropped pmatWhatever(abstract alge). good luck with groups, rings, and fields...
Post a Comment
<< Home