1

According to Conjunctive syllogism, We accept one part of the statement as true and reject the other part as false.

Truth table for AND

_____________
| P Q | (P.Q)|  
| 1 0 |   0  |  
| 0 1 |   0  |  
| 1 1 |   1  |  
| 0 0 |   0  |  
|_____|______|  

For example:

Suppose, we have,

Premise 1: ~(P.Q)
Premise 2: P
Therefore, ~Q

I think we have it so far so good up to this point, but why can't we have the other way?

For example:

Premise 1: ~(P.Q)
Premise 2: ~Q
No conclusion.

Why can't we draw our conclusion as P here since ~(P.Q) means at least one is false? I'm not clear with what it means by at least one false because we can only attach ~ with either P or Q so not both are true. I'd like the reason to be explained with an example with truth table just to be clear.

  • The logical formula you seem to be looking for is "XOr" - the exclusive or. Informally, that's P or Q, but not both. If that is true, and you know the value of one of P or Q, then we know the other has the opposite value. Truth tables are difficult in comments, as there's no line breaks, but I'll try: P, Q, P Xor Q - 0,0,0|0,1,1|1,0,1|1,1,0 – Ryno Oct 22 '12 at 8:41
2

You already have the truth-table corresponding to the conjunction connective, so it should be transparent for you to recognize the answer to your question from the syntactic point of view of the calculus.

Asserting ¬(P.Q) [Premise 1] is logically equivalent to assigning a binary truth-value of zero to (P.Q). So, looking at the table, you see there are three possible assignments to the truth-values of P and Q that yield that result. Then, by asserting ¬(Q) [Premise 2] and using the same argument, you assign a truth-value of zero to Q; looking again at the truth table, this restricts the possibilities to two cases (namely, one in which P's truth-value is zero, and another in which it is one). So, the assertions do not imply a definite binary value for P's truth state.

From the semantical point of view, the interpretation of the conjunction connective in this case follows (informally) this way. You know that either P is false while Q is true, or Q is false while P is true, or P and Q are both false; and you also know that Q is false. This last statements eliminates the first possibility (Q being true while P was false), and you are left with the other two; so, what you seem to think to be justified (the second possibility, that Q being false then P must be true) excludes the third situation when both P and Q are false, and so is fallacious.

  • How do we know about ~(P.Q) = 0? Is this because we take P=1 and Q=1 and then apply the negation? If so, how do we know the truth value of the letter? – cpx Oct 20 '12 at 1:29
  • 1
    When you assert a premise, you assign a truth value of one to that formula. If you assert ¬(P.Q), then that wff is formally true, and that "knowledge" comes from the very act of assertion. What the logical system allows you to is to draw valid conclusions from hypothesis; it doesn't give you a clue to what premises are true or false in the first place. But once you have asserted a few premises, you can apply the rules of the calculus to get new (logically equivalent) formulas. So, from the assertion of ¬(P.Q), you can (syntactically) obtain (P.Q) by double negation, and assign a zero to it. – Mono Oct 20 '12 at 3:34

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.