2

Wikipedia offers this as the difference between "logical equivalence" and "material equivalence":

Logical equivalence is different from material equivalence. Formulas p and q are logically equivalent if and only if the statement of their material equivalence (P ⟺ Q) is a tautology.

Material equivalence is associated with the biconditional. However, I am still unclear what the difference is between the two.

I want to make sure I am using the terms correctly. Recently to avoid confusion I dropped the adjective "logically" in front of the following use of "equivalent":

Using De Morgan's laws, ¬(A ∧ ¬B) is equivalent to ¬A ∨ B.

If there is any difference between the two terms, what is it? Perhaps an example of the correct use of each would help clarify the difference.

If there isn't any difference I probably shouldn't use either one.


Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 13). Logical equivalence. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 11:22, August 3, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logical_equivalence&oldid=883191333

6

The answer is suggested by the quote that you provided:

Logical equivalence is different from material equivalence. Formulas P and Q are logically equivalent if and only if the statement of their material equivalence (P ↔ Q) is a tautology.

There is a difference between being true and being a tautology. Once you see this you can see the difference between material and logical equivalence. So, for instance, if P = 'today is Saturday' and Q = 'the year is 2019' then (P ↔ Q) is true, because both P and Q are true (at the time of writing), but (P ↔ Q) is not a tautology, because tomorrow P will be false and Q will remain true.

A similar difference exists between material and logical implication, which is also important to remember. With the same example, (P → Q) is true but not a tautology, so P does not logically imply Q. This similarity is to be expected as material equivalence is simply bi-directional material implication, and logical equivalence is bi-directional logical implication.

This is why it can be misleading to write 'P → Q' without specifying if one means logical implication, material implication, or some other kind of conditional relation.

| improve this answer | |
  • Could we say that material implication (⇒) is a binary operator — that is to say a ternary relation — about truth, while logical implication (⊢ or ⊨) is a binary relation about syntactic or semantic causality? – Maggyero Jul 14 at 23:12
  • @Maggyero You could say that, though I would not use 'causality'. – Eliran Jul 15 at 3:27
  • What is the difference with causality? – Maggyero Jul 15 at 8:30
1

It may be enriching to view the distinction in a broader setting:

P ↔ Q is plainly a compound proposition: Any propositions P and Q are joined by the material equivalence (biconditional) connective in the language of propositional logic.

However, logical equivalence of P and Q, P ⟛ Q, is a theorem and requires to be shown that both P ⊢ Q and Q ⊢ P hold, what, alternatively for propositional logic, amounts to showing that P ↔ Q is a tautology.

| improve this answer | |

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.