Re: circular relationships ok?

JOG wrote:
[...]
> The distinction is:
>
> A -> B is a proposition
> B v ~A is a boolean expression

'A->B' is exactly the same as 'B or not(A)' as can easily be seen from their truth tables.

Both can be called either 'propositions' or 'Boolean [logic] expressions'.

The explantion below does not make any obvious sense.

>
> The first is a declared fact, the second just a boolean statement that
> resolves to true or false, obviously a very different kettle of fish.
> So I thought that you might perhaps have meant "B v ~A = True", but
> substituting a couple of values in for A and B highlights there still
> exists a difference:
>
> A -> B
> IF it is raining THEN I wear a coat
>
> B OR ~A = True
> EITHER I wear a coat OR it is NOT raining
>
> These are clearly very different things. For example, in the second
> statement I have declared that I will not be wearing a coat if it is
> dry but very cold outside, however this would be a perfectly acceptable
> state of affairs according to the first statement.
>
> All best, Jim.
Received on Sat Mar 04 2006 - 19:24:27 CET