Consider the statement


Where P and Q are statements, and denotes the tautology (true) statement. It seems intuitively true that the above biconditional statement is true. But I would like to prove it.

One direction is easy enough to prove: suppose Q≡⊤; then by substitution, we have

P∧Q ≡ P∧⊤ ≡ P

by the identity law for conjunction.

However, the converse seems trickier. By assuming P∧Q≡P, how would one know for certain that Q≡⊤?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

(P.S. Is it improper of me to use two different symbols for equivalence here?)

  • 2
    Those symbols look a bit strange, yes. I would use a double arrow. Concerning the proof, you could simply use a truth table. Otherwise, make case distinctions over both P and Q (which is the equivalent of a truth table in natural deduction).
    – user2953
    Sep 29 '15 at 5:59
  • 3
    Check with a truth-table : it seems not true ... Sep 29 '15 at 7:14

It is true that :

(Q≡⊤) ⊨ (P∧Q≡P)

we can check it with a truth-table.

But the other "direction" does not hold : when P and Q are both false, we have that (P∧Q≡P) is true but (Q≡⊤) is not.


As an example: P = "A person is more than 40 years old", Q = "A person is more than 30 years old". P ^ Q means "A person is both more than 40 years old and more than 30 years old", which is obviously equivalent to just P. But Q is not a tautology at all.

P∧Q≡P means that Q is true whenever P is true. Nothing more. You can't jump from this to the conclusion that Q is always true.

  • Very concrete and illustrative example - helped me think about and understand it. Thanks @Gnasher729! Sep 30 '15 at 2:29

Is it true that (P∧Q≡P)⇔(Q≡⊤)?


  1. ((P&Q)<->P) <-> (P->Q).

  2. (Q<->⊤) <-> Q.

  3. [(P->Q) <-> Q] <-> (PVQ).


  1. [(P∧Q≡P)⇔(Q≡⊤)] <-> (PvQ).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.