views:

332

answers:

9

how to read P implies Q in classical logic?

example :

Distributivity:  

Ka(X->Y) -> (KaX -> KaY)

This is modal logic which uses classical logic rules.
KaX : a knows the that X is true.

I m curious about how to read implication in english? if then else?

Edit : in Modal Logic, Ka becomes Box, well it s boxed shape sign, that symbolizes necessiation rule, Rule N, that means, box P , if you have P in a world Delta then all the acessible worlds should also have P.

THere is also Diamond P, which means possibility, that there exists one world which has P accessible from the world that Diamond P has.

+2  A: 

P implies Q. You have the English in front of you.

Byron Whitlock
:) can you convert the above formula to that ?
converting the formula to English would sound redundant and confusing. Otherwise implication would have a better adjective. Boolean logic is learning how to abstract your thoughts out of english :D
Byron Whitlock
then why do AI researchers or logicians use first order logic to describe things in bidirectionally? what are the purposes of prolog ?
Because it is difficult to express effectively in English ;) Prolog allows you to codify that logic in a program. Translating a "standard" program into English is way easier than in prolog just for this reason.
Byron Whitlock
Exactly, because you need to convert p->q to english, becuase p implies q doesnt mean anything except that p implies q.
+5  A: 

"P implies Q" is equivalent to "if P, then Q".

Jim Lewis
which is logically equivalent to ~P or Q
advs89
"if P, then Q" is correct in principle, however be sure not to confuse it with the `if condition then statement` code construct. While this construct executes `statement` only if `condition` evaluates to `true`, the implication operator takes two boolean expressions. The result is even then `true`, if P is false, independent of the value of Q. The colloquial term "if P, then Q" doesnt really reflect that behavior. `~P or Q` is much better in this regard.
Philip Daubmeier
Another alternative: In plain english `"P implies Q"` means `"if P holds then Q must hold, too. If not, Q can be whatever"`
Philip Daubmeier
+3  A: 

Not P Or Q. This version you want?

Svisstack
+1 since with nested implications is probably easiest to translate.
Agos
A: 

P implies Q is true if P and Q are true, or if P is false.

It is false if P is true and Q is false.

*edit: Basically, what Svisstack said.

amertune
+2  A: 

Translating your example:

Distributivity

Ka[Z] : ‘A knows Z is true’

Ka[(X->Y)] -> (Ka[X] -> Ka[Y])

If A knows that from X follows Y, then from A knowing that X is true it follows that A knows that Y is true.

Debilski
+1  A: 

To me, P => Q is best read as P is false, or Q is true

binil
+14  A: 

Perhaps it helps you to understand that if you imagine a small example from the real world:

Fire implies Heat

That means if you have fire, there must be heat. If there is no fire, there can be heat, due to other effects (e.g. sun is shining :) ), but there could as well be no heat.

If you have fire but no heat, somethings wrong. The implication is false then.

Philip Daubmeier
+1: That's a very good explanation for something that is often explained very badly
advs89
+1  A: 

Sometimes these distributivity laws, and other axioms of modal logic, are easier to grasp if you use the comodalities, which are the De Morgan dualities of given modalities. The comodality of necessity is then necessity. For a to coknow P means that a does not know not P: intuitively it means that a's knowledge does not contradict P, so a could learn P without coming to know a contradiction. Say Ca P if a coknows P.

Then using classical logic, distributivity is equivalent to:

Ka(X or Y) -> (KaX or CaY)

This form is often easier to handle that the form with implication in formal manipulations.

Charles Stewart
+1  A: 

Are you looking for a definition of the P -> Q or advice on how to actually say this express it in words when writing or speaking? If it's the former, there are already some good suggestions.

However, if the latter, I would suggest simply saying "P implies Q" as you've already used in your post. It's succinct, and unless your talking to someone with limited or no familiarity with mathematical logic, it's meaning is clear.

Dale Hagglund
Whoops. I see that Byron Whitlock said essentially the same thing.
Dale Hagglund