
Applied Math Applied Math Forum 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
May 12th, 2009, 10:55 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2009 Posts: 201 Thanks: 0  Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy
Hello, there's something I don't quite understand: The condition ">" is valid if: T > T F > F F > T But isn't F>F the same as "denying the antecedent"? Thanks 
May 12th, 2009, 11:05 AM  #2 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 932 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy
No. Denying the antecedent is a > b a = F  b = F (wrong) But both F > T and F > F are true, so you can't conclude anything about a > b given that a is F. 
May 12th, 2009, 11:13 AM  #3  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2009 Posts: 201 Thanks: 0  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy Quote:
Isn't saying if a is false, then b is false ( a  > b, not a :. not b) the same as F> F? (if the antecedent is false, then the consequent is false??)  
May 12th, 2009, 11:40 AM  #4  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2009 Posts: 201 Thanks: 0  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy Quote:
So does this mean that in certain situations, if it is clearly F>F, denying the antecedent is valid? EDIT: Nevermind, I took the ">" implication as an act of deducing; I see that the determinant of its validity is noncontradiction  
May 12th, 2009, 03:45 PM  #5 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 932 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy
In case there's any doubt: (a = 2, b = 3) > a + b = 5 If a = 1 and b = 4 then you have F > T If a = 1 and b = 1 then you have F > F If a = 2 and b = 3 then you have T > T But you can't have T > F. 
May 12th, 2009, 06:55 PM  #6 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2009 Posts: 201 Thanks: 0  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy
thanks again, could you actually show me "F>F" (or if you don't mind, the conditionals) in other deductions, sentences, propositions..etc? thanks like.. If a then b, not b then not a 
May 12th, 2009, 09:47 PM  #7 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 932 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. (Knowing a > b doesn't let you conclude any of a, nota, b, or notb, it just tells you relationships between them.) If you just want examples like my last, though, I can do that. (x is an integer, y is an integer) > x + y is an integer for (x, y) = (pi, 3/2) x is positive > (2^x > 1) for x = 1 x is the President of the United States > x is the CommanderinChief of the United States for x = CRGreathouse x is a human > x is a featherless biped for x = an octopus 
May 13th, 2009, 07:58 AM  #8 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2007 From: Chicago Posts: 1,701 Thanks: 2  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy
I'm not sure if this has been answered... The problem is that you are confusing evaluating an implication with known values and concluding the values based on the implication. In other words: Given a>b, we know something about the relation of the truth value of a and the truth value of b: We know if a is true, b must be true, and if b is false, then a must not be true (because then T>F). Here, we're using the assumption that the implication is valid to infer the value of a or the value of b On the other hand, if "a = false" is given, The implication a>b is valid, because it is only invalid when a is True and b is False. Here we're using the assumption that a is false to infer the validity of the implication Putting these ideas together, the statements you gave infers the truth value (validity) of the implication based on the truth values of the terms (a and b), while denying the antecedent infers the truth value of term b based on the validity of the implication and term a. I hope that wasn't too dense... 
May 13th, 2009, 09:16 AM  #9 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2009 Posts: 201 Thanks: 0  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy
Thanks guys, I think that you both answered my problem to its core I have one more thing that needs to be cleared up though, and it may sound strange.. Anyway, the nature of the implication ">" seems to have different attitudes.. For example, if we said, True: Mr.Jones is a Canadian Citizen (a) > True: Mr. Jones is a human being (b), the truth or the implication in this sentence is necessarily true  there is no way around its truth  you cannot be a citizen if you are not a human being. However, if you said, False: Mr.Jones is not a Canadian Citizen > False: Mr. Jones is not a human being or False: Mr. Jones is not a Canadian Citizen > True: Mr.Jones is a human being, the truths or the implications of these sentences are less selfevident and not "necessarily true"; even though it MAY be true, if you choose one, you could always hypothesize the other. It seems to me that while the validity of ">" is at times logically undeniable, it is something else at other times. Thanks again 
May 13th, 2009, 10:20 AM  #10  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 932 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Implications and the "inverse error" fallacy Quote:
This statement is correct because if the second part is false, the first part cannot be true. As it happens in example the other three cases are possible: F > F: x = a rock F > T: x = Tony Blair T > T: x = Stephen Harper But let's suppose that for x = Madison the Canadian goose, x is a Canadian citizen but x is not a human being. All this shows is that the implication x is a Canadian citizen > x is a human being is wrong.  

Tags 
fallacy, implications, inverse error 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Can anyone help me finding this book "Evariste Galois "Toti"  johnmath  Math Books  6  January 27th, 2013 04:13 PM 
A "simple" application of dirac delta "shift theorem"...help  SedaKhold  Calculus  0  February 13th, 2012 12:45 PM 
"separate and integrate" or "Orangutang method"  The Chaz  Calculus  1  August 5th, 2011 09:03 PM 
sample exerimentneed help finding "statistic" and "result"  katie0127  Advanced Statistics  0  December 3rd, 2008 02:54 PM 
terms "nonincreasing" or "nondecreasing"  Ujjwal  Number Theory  2  September 29th, 2008 07:06 AM 