# Return to Question

Post Closed as "unclear what you're asking" by Joseph Weissman
3 added 67 characters in body

So yeah, basically from what i've read, and i've checked multiple sources on this, is that A -> B = ¬A V B.

So to really see where the confusion lies, I'll first state where it doesn't. Where A -> B, then this is saying that if A true, then B is true.

Thus 1 -> 1 is true, since this is just confirming the original statement.

1 -> 0 is false, since than A does not imply B.

Now, what I don't get is this:

``````A -> B | Truth value
0    0 |     1
0    1 |     1
``````

Now, since the truth value lies in the confirmation or falsificion of A implying B, then a value of 1 means, 'yes, A implies B', and 0 means 'no, A does not imply B'. Now whilst this may sound blindingly obvious, this means that if A does not occur, this confirms (or perhaps reconfirms) that A implies B. A implies B given that A does not happen.

So for instance, if A = I am a qualified chef. B = I can cook well. Then if we let A -> B, then if I am not a qualified chef, then by me not being aan unqualified chef, this affirms the conditional that since I am a qualified chef, thus I can cook well because I qualified as a chef. But I just said that I am NOT a chef.

I think it's the case that A could imply B in the absense of A, whether B occurs or not, but we just don't know. Why then don't we just say that the conditional leads to a partial truth table, where the only conclusions we verify are the one's where the antecedent occurs.

I mean, B is even called a consequent, one due to A, so we can't know about the consequences of A (or lack thereof) given that A does not occur.

And to be honest, I don't know why this in the norm. There's a reason why the way we handle the absense of A utterly confuses those new to logic (including myself).

So yeah, basically from what i've read, and i've checked multiple sources on this, is that A -> B = ¬A V B.

So to really see where the confusion lies, I'll first state where it doesn't. Where A -> B, then this is saying that if A true, then B is true.

Thus 1 -> 1 is true, since this is just confirming the original statement.

1 -> 0 is false, since than A does not imply B.

Now, what I don't get is this:

``````A -> B | Truth value
0    0 |     1
0    1 |     1
``````

Now, since the truth value lies in the confirmation or falsificion of A implying B, then a value of 1 means, 'yes, A implies B', and 0 means 'no, A does not imply B'. Now whilst this may sound blindingly obvious, this means that if A does not occur, this confirms (or perhaps reconfirms) that A implies B. A implies B given that A does not happen.

So for instance, if A = I am a qualified chef. B = I can cook well. Then by me not being a chef, this affirms the conditional that I can cook well because I qualified as a chef. But I just said that I am NOT a chef.

I think it's the case that A could imply B in the absense of A, whether B occurs or not, but we just don't know. Why then don't we just say that the conditional leads to a partial truth table, where the only conclusions we verify are the one's where the antecedent occurs.

I mean, B is even called a consequent, one due to A, so we can't know about the consequences of A (or lack thereof) given that A does not occur.

And to be honest, I don't know why this in the norm. There's a reason why the way we handle the absense of A utterly confuses those new to logic (including myself).

So yeah, basically from what i've read, and i've checked multiple sources on this, is that A -> B = ¬A V B.

So to really see where the confusion lies, I'll first state where it doesn't. Where A -> B, then this is saying that if A true, then B is true.

Thus 1 -> 1 is true, since this is just confirming the original statement.

1 -> 0 is false, since than A does not imply B.

Now, what I don't get is this:

``````A -> B | Truth value
0    0 |     1
0    1 |     1
``````

Now, since the truth value lies in the confirmation or falsificion of A implying B, then a value of 1 means, 'yes, A implies B', and 0 means 'no, A does not imply B'. Now whilst this may sound blindingly obvious, this means that if A does not occur, this confirms (or perhaps reconfirms) that A implies B. A implies B given that A does not happen.

So for instance, if A = I am a qualified chef. B = I can cook well. Then if we let A -> B, then if I am not a qualified chef, then by me being an unqualified chef, this affirms the conditional that since I am a qualified chef, thus I can cook well. But I just said that I am NOT a chef.

I think it's the case that A could imply B in the absense of A, whether B occurs or not, but we just don't know. Why then don't we just say that the conditional leads to a partial truth table, where the only conclusions we verify are the one's where the antecedent occurs.

I mean, B is even called a consequent, one due to A, so we can't know about the consequences of A (or lack thereof) given that A does not occur.

And to be honest, I don't know why this in the norm. There's a reason why the way we handle the absense of A utterly confuses those new to logic (including myself).

2 added 220 characters in body

So yeah, basically from what i've read, and i've checked multiple sources on this, is that A -> B = ¬A V B.

So to really see where the confusion lies, I'll first state where it doesn't. Where A -> B, then this is saying that if A true, then B is true.

Thus 1 -> 1 is true, since this is just confirming the original statement.

1 -> 0 is false, since than A does not imply B.

Now, what I don't get is this:

``````A -> B | Truth value
0    0 |     1
0    1 |     1
``````

Now, since the truth value lies in the confirmation or falsificion of A implying B, then a value of 1 means, 'yes, A implies B', and 0 means 'no, A does not imply B'. Now whilst this may sound blindingly obvious, this means that if A does not occur, this confirms (or perhaps reconfirms) that A implies B. A implies B given that A does not happen.

So for instance, if A = I am a qualified chef. B = I can cook well. Then by me not being a chef, this affirms the conditional that I can cook well because I qualified as a chef. But I just said that I am NOT a chef.

I think it's the case that A could imply B in the absense of A, whether B occurs or not, but we just don't know. Why then don't we just say that the conditional leads to a partial truth table, where the only conclusions we verify are the one's where the antecedent occurs.

I mean, B is even called a consequent, one due to A, so we can't know about the consequences of A (or lack thereof) given that A does not occur.

And to be honest, I don't know why this in the norm. There's a reason why the way we handle the absense of A utterly confuses those new to logic (including myself).

So yeah, basically from what i've read, and i've checked multiple sources on this, is that A -> B = ¬A V B.

So to really see where the confusion lies, I'll first state where it doesn't. Where A -> B, then this is saying that if A true, then B is true.

Thus 1 -> 1 is true, since this is just confirming the original statement.

1 -> 0 is false, since than A does not imply B.

Now, what I don't get is this:

``````A -> B | Truth value
0    0 |     1
0    1 |     1
``````

Now, since the truth value lies in the confirmation or falsificion of A implying B, then a value of 1 means, 'yes, A implies B', and 0 means 'no, A does not imply B'. Now whilst this may sound blindingly obvious, this means that if A does not occur, this confirms (or perhaps reconfirms) that A implies B. A implies B given that A does not happen.

I think it's the case that A could imply B in the absense of A, whether B occurs or not, but we just don't know. Why then don't we just say that the conditional leads to a partial truth table, where the only conclusions we verify are the one's where the antecedent occurs.

I mean, B is even called a consequent, one due to A, so we can't know about the consequences of A (or lack thereof) given that A does not occur.

And to be honest, I don't know why this in the norm. There's a reason why the way we handle the absense of A utterly confuses those new to logic (including myself).

So yeah, basically from what i've read, and i've checked multiple sources on this, is that A -> B = ¬A V B.

So to really see where the confusion lies, I'll first state where it doesn't. Where A -> B, then this is saying that if A true, then B is true.

Thus 1 -> 1 is true, since this is just confirming the original statement.

1 -> 0 is false, since than A does not imply B.

Now, what I don't get is this:

``````A -> B | Truth value
0    0 |     1
0    1 |     1
``````

Now, since the truth value lies in the confirmation or falsificion of A implying B, then a value of 1 means, 'yes, A implies B', and 0 means 'no, A does not imply B'. Now whilst this may sound blindingly obvious, this means that if A does not occur, this confirms (or perhaps reconfirms) that A implies B. A implies B given that A does not happen.

So for instance, if A = I am a qualified chef. B = I can cook well. Then by me not being a chef, this affirms the conditional that I can cook well because I qualified as a chef. But I just said that I am NOT a chef.

I think it's the case that A could imply B in the absense of A, whether B occurs or not, but we just don't know. Why then don't we just say that the conditional leads to a partial truth table, where the only conclusions we verify are the one's where the antecedent occurs.

I mean, B is even called a consequent, one due to A, so we can't know about the consequences of A (or lack thereof) given that A does not occur.

And to be honest, I don't know why this in the norm. There's a reason why the way we handle the absense of A utterly confuses those new to logic (including myself).

1

# Material conditional: Why does the absence of the predicate validate the conditional?

So yeah, basically from what i've read, and i've checked multiple sources on this, is that A -> B = ¬A V B.

So to really see where the confusion lies, I'll first state where it doesn't. Where A -> B, then this is saying that if A true, then B is true.

Thus 1 -> 1 is true, since this is just confirming the original statement.

1 -> 0 is false, since than A does not imply B.

Now, what I don't get is this:

``````A -> B | Truth value
0    0 |     1
0    1 |     1
``````

Now, since the truth value lies in the confirmation or falsificion of A implying B, then a value of 1 means, 'yes, A implies B', and 0 means 'no, A does not imply B'. Now whilst this may sound blindingly obvious, this means that if A does not occur, this confirms (or perhaps reconfirms) that A implies B. A implies B given that A does not happen.

I think it's the case that A could imply B in the absense of A, whether B occurs or not, but we just don't know. Why then don't we just say that the conditional leads to a partial truth table, where the only conclusions we verify are the one's where the antecedent occurs.

I mean, B is even called a consequent, one due to A, so we can't know about the consequences of A (or lack thereof) given that A does not occur.

And to be honest, I don't know why this in the norm. There's a reason why the way we handle the absense of A utterly confuses those new to logic (including myself).