Skip to main content

Logical Implication

From one true proposition we can derive other true propositions. This is called logical Implication.

Examples
  • From A∧BA \land B we can conclude AA.
  • From (A  ⟹  B)∧A(A \implies B) \land A we can conclude B.

If from AA we can conclude BB, then we write A⊨BA \models B, which is equivalent to saying that A  ⟹  BA \implies B is tautology.

More Examples
  • A∧B⊨AA \land B \models A
  • A⊨A∨BA \models A \lor B
  • (A  ⟹  B)∧A⊨B(A \implies B) \land A \models B
  • (A  ⟹  B)∧(B  ⟹  C)⊨A  ⟹  C(A \implies B) \land (B \implies C) \models A \implies C
  • (A∨B)∧¬A⊨B(A \lor B) \land \lnot A \models B

Find Logical implications​

We can find logical implications in two ways:

  1. Using a truth table.
  2. Using a proof

Logical Implication Truth Table​

Two methods to find logical implications using truth table.

  • Method 1: Check the rows where LHS is true.
  • Method 2: Use the property A⊨BA \models B is equivalent to A  ⟹  BA \implies B is tautology.

To show that A⊨A∨BA \models A \lor B

Method 1​

  1. Draw a truth table.

    AABBA∨BA \lor B
    TTTTTT
    TTFFTT
    FFTTTT
    FFFFFF
  2. Only check the rows when AA is true.

    If AA is true and A∨BA \lor B is also true, then we can say that AA logically implies A∨BA \lor B.

Method 2​

Because A⊨BA \models B is the same as say A  ⟹  BA \implies B is a tautology.

We can show A⊨A∨BA \models A \lor B using the property above.

  1. Draw a truth table. Including an extra column A  ⟹  A∨BA \implies A \lor B.

    AABBA∨BA \lor BA  ⟹  A∨BA \implies A \lor B
    TTTTTTTT
    TTFFTTTT
    FFTTTTTT
    FFFFFFTT
  2. A  ⟹  A∨BA \implies A \lor B is true in all cases, so logical implication is true.

info

Logical implication is not symmetric. And it is different from logical equivalence.

Proof​

How to Use Logical Implication​

Substitution. But unlike logical equivalence, it is not always safe to make substitutions with logical implications.

Safe Substitution​

Only substitute using a logical implication if the left hand side is known to be true.

Example
  • We have A∧B⊨AA \land B \models A, so if A∧BA \land B is true, we can replace it with AA.
  • AA = "It is raining"
  • BB = "It is cloudy"
  • If "It is raining and cloudy" is true, we can replace that with "It is cloudy".

Unsafe Substitution​

What would happen if the left hand side is false?

  • Use A∧B⊨AA \land B \models A substitute into ¬(A∧B)\lnot (A \land B), to get ¬A\lnot A.
  • AA = "Socrates is human"
  • BB = "Socrates is a teapot"
  • From "NOT (Socrates is human and a teapot)" (A∧BA \land B), we cannot conclude that "Socrates is not human" (¬A\lnot A).

Logical Equivalence vs. Logical Implication​

P≡QP \equiv QP⊨QP \models Q
PP and QQ always have the same truth valueQQ is true whenever PP is true
Can make substitutions (not restrictions)Can only safely make substitutions when PP is true
Truth table: Two columns are identicalTruth table: In rows where PP are TT, QQ is also TT
P  ⟺  QP \iff Q is a tautologyP  ⟹  QP \implies Q is a tautology

References​