I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as

P → Q
Prove: ¬P ∨ Q


  • 3
    Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org – Frank Hubeny Apr 23 at 1:08
  • 1
    Welcome to PSE. The answers hint at how to find a proof. But your question seems to be whether proving P → Q from ¬P ∨ Q is the same as proving ¬P ∨ Q from P → Q to which the answer is "No, this is not the same thing, though the proofs might look (structurally or otherwise) similar". – Jishin Noben Apr 23 at 8:13
  • The two statements should have the same truth values. Would that analysis assist in showing equivalence? – Mark Andrews Apr 23 at 23:09

In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional Proof.

This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).

Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.


In this particular case, the two statements are equivalent: (¬P ∨ Q) ⊢ (P → Q) and (P → Q) ⊢ (¬P ∨ Q) are both provably true statements, so (¬P ∨ Q) ≡ (P → Q).

But in order to prove that equivalence, we need to prove both directions separately. To see why, consider the case where instead of (¬P ∨ Q) and (P → Q), we have these two statements:

  • P
  • P ∨ Q

We can trivially prove that (P ∨ Q) follows from P; this is more or less the definition of the addition rule. But P does not necessarily follow from (P ∨ Q), since (¬P ∧ Q) also satisfies that clause. We can prove it in one direction, but they are not equivalent statements.

  • The two statements are logically equivalent using the material implication rule. Draw out a truth table and see for yourself that the tables are 100 percent identical. – Logikal Apr 23 at 23:45
  • @Logikal I know they are equivalent. I said they are equivalent. But the OP isn't asking if they're equivalent; they are asking if, having already proven A ⊢ B, you must still prove B ⊢ A in order to establish that an equivalence exists. The answer to that is "yes". The fact that this particular equivalence has already been proven doesn't change that. – Ray Apr 24 at 1:24

If one uses a truth table generator one can show that (¬P ∨ Q) ↔ (P → Q). To see this, insert the following input into the Stanford Truth Table Tool: (~P or Q)<=>(P=>Q)

This shows that the two statements are equivalent.

However, the question asks one to prove P → Q given the premise ¬P ∨ Q. Here is how one might do this using a natural deduction proof checker:

enter image description here

See the links below for an explanation of the rules used by this proof.

The proof would not be the same if we wanted to prove ¬P ∨ Q given the premise P → Q. That proof would look like this:

enter image description here

Although the statements are equivalent based on a truth table generator, the proofs from one to the other may be different depending on which is the premise and which the conclusion.

Kevin Klement's JavaScript/PHP Fitch-style natural deduction proof editor and checker http://proofs.openlogicproject.org/

P. D. Magnus, Tim Button with additions by J. Robert Loftis remixed and revised by Aaron Thomas-Bolduc, Richard Zach, forallx Calgary Remix: An Introduction to Formal Logic, Winter 2018. http://forallx.openlogicproject.org/

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.