Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Implication

In logic, implication is a fundamental binary connective in propositional calculus that expresses the conditional relationship between two statements: if the antecedent is true, then the consequent must be true. Denoted by symbols such as →, ⊃, or ⇒, it is interpreted in classical logic as material implication, which holds true in all cases except when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, as defined by the following truth table: This truth-functional definition, equivalent to ¬A ∨ B (the negation of A or B), underpins much of formal reasoning in mathematics and philosophy.^[1] The origins of implication trace back to ancient Greek philosophy, particularly the work of Philo of Megara in the 4th century BCE, who characterized a true conditional as "one which does not have a true antecedent and a false consequent," a formulation preserved in Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Pyrrhonism.^[2] Adopted in modern symbolic logic by figures like Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, material implication became a cornerstone of systems such as those in Principia Mathematica (1910–1913), facilitating rigorous deduction.^[3] However, it gives rise to the paradoxes of material implication, two counterintuitive consequences arising from its truth conditions: first, any conditional with a false antecedent is vacuously true (e.g., "If the moon is made of green cheese, then 2 + 2 = 4" holds because the antecedent is false), and second, any conditional with a true consequent is also vacuously true (e.g., "If 2 + 2 = 4, then the moon is made of green cheese" holds because the consequent is true).^[4] These paradoxes highlight the disconnect between formal implication and natural language intuitions about relevance and causation, prompting developments in alternative logics, including strict implication (C.I. Lewis, 1918) and relevance logics.^[5] Despite such critiques, material implication's simplicity and utility in automated theorem proving, programming languages, and theoretical computer science ensure its enduring significance.^[1]

In Logic

Material Implication

Material implication, also known as the material conditional, is a fundamental binary connective in classical propositional logic that represents "if-then" statements in a truth-functional manner. It is defined such that the proposition p \to q (read as "if p, then q") holds true in all cases except when the antecedent p is true and the consequent q is false.^[6] This truth-functional semantics means the truth value of p \to q depends solely on the truth values of p and q, without regard to any conceptual connection or relevance between them.^[6] The truth conditions of material implication are captured by the following truth table:

p	q	p \to q
True	True	True
True	False	False
False	True	True
False	False	True

This table illustrates that p \to q is false only in the scenario where p is true but q is false; otherwise, it is true.^[6] The connective was formalized in modern logic by Gottlob Frege in his 1879 work Begriffsschrift, where he introduced a notation for conditionals as part of a system for predicate logic, and further developed by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in their 1910 Principia Mathematica, which used it as a primitive for deriving mathematical truths.^[7]^[3] Material implication exhibits several counterintuitive features when compared to everyday "if-then" reasoning in natural language, leading to what are known as the paradoxes of material implication. One key paradox is the explosion principle (ex falso quodlibet), which states that a false antecedent implies any consequent whatsoever; for instance, if p is false, then p \to q is true regardless of q's truth value, allowing contradictions to entail arbitrary statements.^[6] These paradoxes arise because material implication lacks requirements for relevance or causation, making statements like "if the moon is made of green cheese, then Paris is in France" vacuously true in formal logic, despite sounding absurd in ordinary discourse.^[6] C.I. Lewis highlighted these issues in 1912, critiquing the divergence from intuitive conditional reasoning.^[6] In formal semantics, material implication aligns with Boolean algebra, where it is logically equivalent to the disjunction of the negation of the antecedent and the consequent: p \to q \equiv \neg p \lor q. This equivalence underscores its role as a truth-functional operator derivable from negation and disjunction, central to the algebraic structure of classical logic.^[6]

Strict Implication

Strict implication is a connective in modal logic that captures necessary conditional relationships, defined as the necessity of the material conditional: p \Rightarrow q if and only if \square (p \to q), meaning that if p is true, then q must necessarily hold.^[6] This formulation ensures that the implication is not merely truth-functional but requires the consequent to follow from the antecedent in all relevant possible scenarios, distinguishing it from weaker forms of conditional reasoning.^[8] The concept was developed by philosopher and logician Clarence Irving Lewis in the early 20th century, primarily through his axiomatic systems of modal logic known as S1 to S5, introduced between the 1910s and 1930s.^[8] Lewis proposed strict implication in response to the paradoxes of material implication, such as the inference from a false antecedent to any consequent or from a true consequent regardless of the antecedent, which he argued failed to capture intuitive notions of entailment and relevance.^[6] In his seminal 1918 work A Survey of Symbolic Logic and the 1932 book Symbolic Logic co-authored with Cooper Harold Langford, Lewis formalized these systems to prioritize stricter inferential rules that align better with ordinary reasoning about implications.^[9] In possible worlds semantics, which Lewis pioneered as a framework for modal notions, the truth conditions for strict implication p \Rightarrow q at a world w hold if, in every possible world accessible from w where p is true, q is also true.^[10] This semantic interpretation, later refined by Saul Kripke, underscores the necessity aspect: the implication fails only if there exists an accessible world where p obtains but q does not.^[8] Compared to material implication, strict implication incorporates modal axioms that enforce necessity, such as the distribution axiom \square (p \to q) \to (\square p \to \square q), making it stricter and effective at avoiding paradoxes involving irrelevant consequents—for instance, preventing the deduction of unrelated truths from falsehoods.^[6] These axioms, varying across Lewis's S1–S5 systems (with S5 featuring the strongest necessity conditions via the Euclidean accessibility relation), provide a more robust framework for entailment without the counterintuitive behaviors of purely classical conditionals.^[11] Strict implication finds applications in deontic logic, where it formalizes conditional obligations by ensuring normative necessity; for example, "if one performs action A, then one is obliged to B" can be represented as \square (A \to O B), avoiding issues with material conditionals in expressing duties that hold robustly under specified circumstances.^[12] This use, explored in early deontic systems influenced by modal logic, helps model ethical and legal reasoning where obligations must necessarily follow from actions.^[13]

Logical Consequence

Logical consequence is a fundamental semantic relation in logic, where a formula \phi is a logical consequence of a set of premises \Gamma, denoted \Gamma \models \phi, if every model that satisfies all formulas in \Gamma also satisfies \phi.^[14] This model-theoretic definition captures the idea that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion in all possible interpretations, distinguishing it from mere probabilistic or inductive support.^[14] Alfred Tarski formalized this concept in 1936 within the semantics of deductive systems, defining logical consequence as the preservation of truth across all models where the premises hold true, thereby providing a precise criterion for validity in formal languages. Tarski's approach emphasized the role of logical constants and the structure of the language to ensure the consequence relation is invariant under reinterpretations of non-logical vocabulary.^[14] A key distinction arises between this semantic (model-theoretic) notion of consequence, which relies on interpretations and satisfaction, and the syntactic (proof-theoretic) notion, which concerns derivability through formal proofs from axioms and inference rules.^[14] The soundness and completeness theorems bridge these perspectives: soundness ensures that every syntactically provable consequence is semantically valid (\Gamma \vdash \phi implies \Gamma \models \phi), while completeness guarantees that every semantic consequence is syntactically provable (\Gamma \models \phi implies \Gamma \vdash \phi).^[14] For first-order logic, Kurt Gödel proved completeness in 1930, showing that the standard proof systems capture all model-theoretic validities.^[15] A central inference rule in such systems is modus ponens, which allows deriving q from premises p \to q and p, enabling the step-by-step construction of proofs that reflect semantic entailment.^[16] Logical consequence exhibits the monotonicity property: if \Gamma \models \phi, then for any superset \Delta \supseteq \Gamma, it follows that \Delta \models \phi, meaning the addition of premises cannot invalidate an existing consequence.^[14] This property underpins the reliability of deductive reasoning, as it ensures that expanding the set of assumptions preserves inferential commitments. Material implication often serves as a building block for expressing single-premise instances of this relation.^[14]

In Mathematics

Set-Theoretic Implication

In set theory, one set A implies another set B if A is a subset of B, denoted A \subseteq B, meaning that every element of A is also an element of B.^[17] This relation captures the idea that the occurrence of elements in A guarantees their presence in B, providing a foundational mechanism for expressing containment and hierarchy among mathematical objects.^[18] The subset relation can be formally represented in predicate logic as \forall x (x \in A \to x \in B), where the material implication \to links membership in A to membership in B for all elements x.^[17] This logical formulation underscores the deep connection between set inclusion and classical logic, allowing set-theoretic implications to be analyzed within broader deductive frameworks.^[18] The concept of subset inclusion emerged in the late 19th century through Georg Cantor's development of set theory, where he formalized sets and their power sets in his 1895–1897 treatise Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre, proving key results on equivalences involving subsets.^[19] To resolve paradoxes arising from naive set comprehension, Ernst Zermelo proposed the first axiomatic system in 1908, incorporating subset axioms that ensure well-defined inclusions without contradictions, later refined into the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms by Abraham Fraenkel and others in the 1920s.^[20] These axioms, particularly the axiom schema of separation, formalize how subsets are derived from existing sets, solidifying implication as a core primitive.^[21] In the context of binary relations, set-theoretic implication manifests in functional relations, where a relation R \subseteq A \times B is functional if each element in the domain A relates to at most one element in the codomain B, ensuring unique mappings akin to implications from inputs to outputs. Such relations form the basis for functions in set theory, where the implication guarantees determinism: for every a \in A, there exists exactly one b \in B such that (a, b) \in R.^[22] A representative example appears in probability theory, where events are modeled as subsets of a sample space \Omega; if event A implies event B (i.e., A \subseteq B), then the probability satisfies P(A) \leq P(B), reflecting the non-negativity of probability measures over inclusions.^[23] For instance, if A is the event of drawing a heart and B is the event of drawing a red card from a standard deck, then A \subseteq B, and P(A) = 13/52 \leq 26/52 = P(B).^[23]

Implication in Proofs

In mathematical proofs, implication serves as a core mechanism for establishing relationships between statements, where a conditional p \to [q](/page/Q) asserts that the truth of the antecedent p guarantees the truth of the consequent [q](/page/Q). This structure underpins the logical progression from axioms and hypotheses to theorems, enabling rigorous deduction in fields like geometry, algebra, and analysis.^[24] The conditional proof technique exemplifies the procedural use of implication by assuming the antecedent p as a temporary hypothesis and deriving the consequent q through valid inferences, thereby concluding p \to q upon discharging the assumption. This method streamlines proofs by isolating the implication's validity without requiring the antecedent to hold universally.^[25] For instance, to prove that if a number is even, then it is divisible by 2, one assumes the number is even and demonstrates divisibility by 2 via basic arithmetic steps. The contrapositive equivalence further enhances proof strategies: p \to q is logically identical to \neg q \to \neg p, allowing proofs to assume the negation of q and derive the negation of p, which is often more intuitive when direct paths from p to q are complex.^[26]^[27] Implication plays a pivotal role in both direct and indirect proofs. Direct proofs build implications sequentially from established premises, while indirect proofs, including reductio ad absurdum, leverage implication by assuming the negation of a statement and deriving a contradiction, which implies the original statement's truth since a contradiction cannot hold.^[28] This indirect approach is particularly effective for existential claims or when positive evidence is elusive. Historically, Euclid's Elements (c. 300 BCE) employed implications extensively in geometric proofs, such as demonstrating that if two sides of a triangle are equal, then the base angles are equal, by assuming the configuration and deriving congruence via prior propositions.^[29] Biconditionals, denoted p \leftrightarrow q, function as mutual implications—requiring proofs of both p \to q and q \to p—and are essential in equivalence proofs, where establishing symmetry confirms definitional or structural parity, as in showing two polynomial representations are identical.^[30] Implication in proofs may briefly reference set-theoretic inclusion for subset relations or logical consequence for validity assessment.

In Linguistics

Implicature

Implicature refers to an inferred meaning that arises in natural language beyond the literal semantic content of an utterance, allowing speakers to convey information indirectly through pragmatic inference.^[31] For example, the statement "Some students passed the exam" literally means that at least one student succeeded, but it typically implies that not all students passed, based on the assumption that the speaker would provide more precise information if it were true.^[31] This distinction from semantic entailment highlights implicature as a looser, context-dependent relation where the implied content does not logically follow from the uttered words.^[32] The foundational framework for understanding conversational implicature was developed by philosopher H. Paul Grice in his 1975 essay "Logic and Conversation," where he proposed that implicatures emerge from speakers' adherence to a Cooperative Principle in communication.^[32] Grice argued that effective conversation relies on participants observing four maxims under this principle: quantity (provide information as informative as required, neither more nor less); quality (do not say what is false or for which adequate evidence is lacking); relation (be relevant); and manner (be clear, brief, orderly, and avoid obscurity or ambiguity).^[32] When a speaker appears to flout one of these maxims—intentionally or otherwise—the hearer infers an implicature to restore the assumption of cooperation, interpreting the utterance as conveying additional meaning.^[32] Grice distinguished two main types of conversational implicatures: particularized, which depend heavily on the specific context and are not automatically inferred, and generalized, which arise by default in most situations unless context cancels them.^[31] Particularized implicatures often involve complex scenarios, such as a speaker saying "The weather is lovely" during a storm to sarcastically imply the opposite, relying on shared knowledge to convey irony.^[32] In contrast, generalized implicatures, like scalar ones, occur routinely; for instance, using "some" instead of "all" implicates "not all" via the quantity maxim, as the speaker is presumed to opt for the weaker term only if the stronger does not apply.^[31] The process of generating an implicature, as outlined by Grice, involves the hearer calculating the speaker's intended meaning through a series of steps: recognizing the literal content, identifying any apparent maxim violation, considering the speaker's presumed intent to cooperate, and inferring the additional meaning that resolves the apparent breach.^[32] This calculation is context-sensitive and assumes rational communication, where the hearer attributes knowledge and beliefs to the speaker.^[32] A key property is cancellability: implicatures can be explicitly or implicitly denied without contradiction, unlike semantic entailments; for example, "Some students passed—in fact, all of them did" remains coherent, canceling the "not all" implicature.^[32] Examples of implicatures illustrate their role in everyday discourse. Scalar implicatures, derived from ordered scales of informativeness (e.g., <some, many, all> or <possible, certain>), frequently arise from the quantity maxim, as in "I ate some of the cookies" implying "I did not eat all of them."^[31] Irony, meanwhile, typically flouts the quality maxim, where a speaker says the opposite of what they mean to highlight a contrast, such as responding to a late arrival with "You're so punctual!" to imply the contrary.^[32] These mechanisms enable nuanced communication, balancing efficiency and indirectness in language use.^[31]

Implicational Universals

Implicational universals in linguistics describe cross-linguistic patterns where the presence of one structural feature in a language necessarily or strongly implies the presence of another feature, serving as a foundational concept in typological studies. These universals contrast with absolute universals by allowing for variation but imposing directional constraints on possible language structures. Pioneered by Joseph Greenberg in his 1963 analysis of 30 diverse languages, implicational universals emerged from empirical observations of grammatical organization, particularly in areas like phonology, morphology, and syntax. A classic example is the phonological implication that if a language has nasal vowels, it must also have oral vowels, as nasalization typically develops as a contrast to existing oral sounds rather than in isolation. In syntax, Greenberg identified numerous such relations, including the implication that languages with subject-object-verb (SOV) word order predominantly use postpositions instead of prepositions to mark adpositional phrases. These form part of broader implicational hierarchies or chains, such as the word order correlation where verb-object (VO) languages tend toward prepositions, while object-verb (OV) languages favor postpositions, creating a predictive scale for typological classification. For instance, Greenberg's Universal 5 states that if a language has SOV order and the genitive follows the noun, then the adjective follows the noun, reinforcing consistent head-final patterns in OV languages.^[33] While Greenberg's original 45 universals were presented as largely absolute, subsequent research using large-scale corpus linguistics has revealed them as strong statistical tendencies with occasional exceptions, reflecting the probabilistic nature of language variation. Analyses of treebank data from projects like Universal Dependencies, covering 186 languages as of November 2025, show that implications like pronominal objects following the verb implying nominal objects do so in over 90% of cases, but rare counterexamples exist in languages such as Turkish or Marathi.^[34]^[35] These findings, drawn from quantitative metrics like dependency ratios, underscore that implicational universals hold as robust gradients rather than rigid rules, aiding in refining typological models.^[34] In historical linguistics, implicational universals provide predictive tools for tracing language evolution, positing that diachronic changes in features like word order adhere to synchronic implications to maintain grammatical harmony. For example, shifts from SOV to SVO order in Indo-European languages are hypothesized to proceed through intermediate stages that respect universal constraints, avoiding unattested "exotic" types. This framework, as explored in studies of change consistency, supports reconstructions of proto-languages and forecasts plausible evolutionary paths based on typological biases.^[36]

In Other Fields

Philosophy

In philosophy, implication extends beyond formal logic to encompass metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical dimensions, where it involves interpretive debates about meaning, truth conditions, and normative relations. Counterfactual implication, expressed as "If p were true, q would be," has been analyzed by David Lewis through a possible worlds framework, where a counterfactual holds if q is true in the closest possible world to the actual one in which p is true, emphasizing similarity relations among worlds to resolve semantic challenges.^[37] This approach addresses the subjunctive mood's role in hypothesizing unrealized scenarios, distinguishing it from indicative conditionals by prioritizing causal or explanatory proximity over mere material truth preservation. Lewis's semantics thus provides a robust tool for understanding how implications function in counterfactual reasoning, influencing fields like decision theory and metaphysics.^[37] Epistemological implications probe how justified beliefs relate to knowledge, particularly through Edmund Gettier's 1963 counterexamples, which demonstrate that a belief can be justified and true without constituting knowledge if the justification relies on false premises or luck.^[38] In Gettier cases, such as a person inferring a true belief about a clock's time from a stopped but coincidentally accurate watch, the implication from justification to knowledge fails, prompting revisions to the traditional justified true belief analysis.^[38] These problems highlight implication's fragility in epistemology, where inferential chains must exclude accidental truths to secure genuine knowledge claims, spurring developments like reliabilism and virtue epistemology.^[38] In ethical philosophy, particularly consequentialism, an action's moral status is implied by its foreseeable consequences, such that rightness or wrongness derives solely from the balance of good outcomes produced.^[39] Utilitarianism, a prominent form, evaluates implications of actions by their utility in maximizing overall well-being, implying that morally obligatory choices are those yielding the greatest net positive effects, regardless of intentions.^[39] This framework underscores how ethical implications link agent decisions to broader societal or individual harms and benefits, critiqued for potentially justifying intuitively wrong acts if consequences appear favorable.^[39] Philosophers of language, notably Peter Strawson in his 1952 work, have critiqued material implication—the formal conditional where "if p then q" holds unless p is true and q false—for failing to capture ordinary language usage, as it permits paradoxes like implying irrelevancies from falsehoods.^[40] Strawson argued that natural conditionals imply relevance and presuppose connections between antecedent and consequent, not mere truth-functional detachment, thus exposing a disconnect between symbolic logic and communicative intent.^[40] This critique influenced ordinary language philosophy, emphasizing implicature in everyday discourse where implications convey pragmatic inferences beyond strict semantics. To address such paradoxes, relevance logics proposed by Alan Ross Anderson and Nuel D. Belnap in 1975 require that implications preserve not only truth but also content relevance, ensuring the antecedent shares propositional material with the consequent to avoid vacuously true but intuitively irrelevant inferences.^[41] Their system, detailed in Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, rejects classical paradoxes by demanding informational overlap, offering a philosophical alternative that aligns more closely with intuitive notions of entailment in reasoning and argumentation.^[41] This development has impacted metaphysics and philosophy of mind by providing tools for analyzing conditional beliefs without the counterintuitive breadth of material implication.

Law

In legal reasoning, implication denotes the deductive entailment by which statutes, precedents, or established facts necessitate particular outcomes, such as rights, duties, or liabilities. For instance, under common law principles, a party's breach of a contractual obligation implies the non-breaching party's right to damages, compensating for foreseeable losses arising from the violation.^[42] This concept ensures that legal rules extend logically to resolve disputes, binding parties to inferred consequences without explicit enumeration in every agreement or statute.^[43] The roots of legal implication lie in Roman law, where jurists employed hypothetical syllogisms—deductive arguments featuring conditional premises—to derive obligations from general norms applied to specific circumstances. This method, which connected antecedent conditions to consequent duties, influenced the systematization of law in the Justinian Code (Corpus Juris Civilis), compiled between 529 and 534 CE under Emperor Justinian I, marking a pivotal advancement in codifying implications from imperial constitutions, senatorial decrees, and juristic writings into a coherent framework.^[44] The Code's structure emphasized logical progression from broad principles to particular liabilities, laying the groundwork for implication as a tool in civil law traditions.^[45] In modern contract law, implied terms represent obligations reasonably inferred from the parties' intentions, the agreement's context, or requirements for business efficacy, filling gaps to prevent unjust outcomes. These terms arise either in fact, from conduct indicating mutual assent, or in law, as standardized duties applicable to certain contract types, such as the implied warranty of merchantability in sales.^[46] For example, every contract carries an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, obligating parties to avoid actions that undermine the agreement's purpose.^[47] Courts determine these implications through objective interpretation, prioritizing what a reasonable person would understand from the circumstances.^[48] Constitutional implications extend this logic to foundational documents, where one clause entails unstated protections essential to its meaning. In the United States, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment implies a substantive right to privacy, safeguarding intimate personal choices—like marital relations or reproductive decisions—from arbitrary state intrusion, as derived from broader liberties inherent in ordered liberty.^[49] This interpretive approach, rooted in the clause's protection against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process, has expanded constitutional safeguards beyond explicit text.^[50] A landmark illustration of implication in case law is Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall inferred the judiciary's power of review from the Constitution's supremacy and separation of powers, holding that acts of Congress repugnant to the Constitution are void.^[51] This decision implied a structural duty for courts to enforce constitutional limits, fundamentally shaping American jurisprudence by establishing judicial review as an inherent implication of the document's design.^[52] Legal arguments frequently invoke such implications through deductive processes, linking premises of law and fact to unavoidable conclusions.^[53]

Statistics

In statistical inference, causal implication refers to the relationship where an intervention on variable X affects the outcome Y, distinguishing it from mere associations observed in data. This framework, formalized through do-calculus, enables the identification of causal effects from observational data by manipulating probabilities under interventions, such as replacing P(Y|X) with P(Y|do(X)), provided certain graphical criteria like backdoor adjustment are met.^[54] Hypothesis testing relies on implications derived from the null hypothesis, which posits no effect or relationship, implying that observed statistics follow a specific distribution under that assumption. For instance, under the null, extreme test statistics are unlikely, leading to rejection if the p-value falls below a significance level like 0.05; this approach, rooted in the Neyman-Pearson framework, maximizes power against alternatives while controlling type I error.^[55] Confidence intervals extend this by implying plausible ranges for parameters, such as a 95% interval suggesting the population mean lies within those bounds with repeated sampling, providing a frequentist measure of uncertainty without directly testing hypotheses. In Bayesian inference, implication arises from posterior probability updates, where prior beliefs are revised with data to yield posteriors that quantify evidence strength for hypotheses. Bayes factors, ratios of marginal likelihoods under competing models, classify evidence as weak (1-3), positive (3-20), strong (20-150), or very strong (>150), enabling direct comparison of implications like model support.^[56] A common pitfall in regression analysis is mistaking correlation for causation, often due to omitted variable bias, where unmodeled confounders inflate or reverse coefficient implications, underscoring the need for causal designs like instrumental variables to validate interventional effects.^[54]

References

[1]
Implies -- from Wolfram MathWorld
"Implies" is the connective in propositional calculus which has the meaning "if A is true, then B is also true." In formal terminology, the term conditional ...
[2]
[PDF] Chapter Four Conditionals - DSpace@MIT
Philo of Megara: “a true conditional is one which does not have a true antecedent and a false consequent” (according to Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of ...
[3]
Peter Suber, "Paradoxes of Material Implication" - Earlham College
There are two paradoxes of material implication. Both are evident from its truth-table column. Whenever the antecedent is false, the whole conditional is true ...
[4]
The Logic of Conditionals - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 3, 2021 · Logics of conditionals deal with inferences involving sentences of the form “if A, (then) B” of natural language. Despite the overwhelming ...
[5]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lewis-ci/
[6]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-conditionals/
[7]
Modern Origins of Modal Logic - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Nov 16, 2010 · Given that strict implication \((p\Rightarrow q)\) is defined as \(\neg \Diamond(p\wedge \neg q)\), it follows that an impossible proposition ...The Syntactic Tradition · The Matrix Method and Some... · Bibliography
[8]
Lewis, Clarence Irving | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Lewis constructed his own logical calculus based on relations in intention and strict implication, which he saw as a more adequate model of actual inference.
[9]
C. I. Lewis on Possible Worlds - Taylor & Francis Online
The article presents Lewis' definition of a possible world, and his formulation of the truth-conditions of statements containing strict implication as their ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[10]
[PDF] 24.244 Modal Logic: Lewis's S1 and S2 - DSpace@MIT
Lewis formulated five systems of modal logic of increasing strength: S1 to S5 ... Lewis thought of his strict implication as an alternative to the material ...
[11]
Deontic Logic - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 7, 2006 · Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) is the most cited and studied system of deontic logic, and one of the first deontic logics axiomatically specified.Standard Deontic Logic · The Andersonian-Kangerian... · Other Enrichments of SDL
[12]
Anderson's Deontic Logic and Relevant Implication - Project Euclid
strict implication is an improvement over material implication, there are good reasons apart from the odd deontic logic produced by Andersonian methods to.
[13]
Logical Consequence - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jan 7, 2005 · A good argument is one whose conclusions follow from its premises; its conclusions are consequences of its premises.
[14]
Kurt Gödel - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 13, 2007 · The theorem as stated by Gödel in Gödel 1930 is as follows: a countably infinite set of quantificational formulas is satisfiable if and only if ...
[15]
Natural Deduction Systems in Logic
Oct 29, 2021 · 'Natural deduction' designates a type of logical system described initially in Gentzen (1934) and Jaśkowski (1934).
[16]
[PDF] 1 Elementary Set Theory - Penn Math
Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A, B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written. A ⊆ B iff (∀x) if x ∈ A ...
[17]
Set Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 8, 2014 · The axioms of set theory imply the existence of a set-theoretic universe so rich that all mathematical objects can be construed as sets.
[18]
A history of set theory - MacTutor - University of St Andrews
Zermelo in 1908 was the first to attempt an axiomatisation of set theory. Many other mathematicians attempted to axiomatise set theory. Fraenkel, von Neumann, ...
[19]
Zermelo's axiomatization of set theory
Jul 2, 2013 · The first axiomatisation of set theory was given by Zermelo in his 1908 paper “Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre, I”The Background to Zermelo's... · The Major Problems with... · Completeness<|control11|><|separator|>
[20]
Set Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The subset axiom, also known as the axiom of separation, asserts that any definable sub-collection of a set is itself a set, that is, for any formula φ(x) φ ( x ) ...On the Origins · Cantor's Development of Set... · The Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms<|control11|><|separator|>
[21]
Functions as relations - SIUE
So, functions are just special relations, and relations are just sets. Thus, all your familiar mathematical objects are turning into sets! Now, since functions ...
[22]
16.5: Set Theory and Probability - Engineering LibreTexts
Jun 29, 2021 · The study of probability is closely tied to set theory because any set can be a sample space and any subset can be an event.
[23]
Methods of mathematics proof - UBC Math Department
Jan 20, 2007 · The Rule of Conditional Proof says that if in a line of proof we introduce a new premise A and we obtain B, then we can infer (A ⇒ B) and ...
[24]
Conditional Proof
A conditional proof is a proof of an "if-then" (conditional) statement. Since any proof makes some assumptions, you might say that every proof is a conditional ...
[25]
Proofs by Contrapositive
Proof by Contrapositive. Proof by contrapositive takes advantage of the logical equivalence between "P implies Q" and "Not Q implies Not P". For example, the ...
[26]
1.7 The contrapositive ‣ Chapter 1 Logic ‣ MATH0005 Algebra 1 ...
This equivalence is commonly used when proving a statement like “ A implies B .” Proofs of statements in this form are often carried out by assuming that A ...
[27]
8. Reductio ad Absurdum – A Concise Introduction to Logic
One of the oldest solutions is to introduce a new proof method, traditionally called “reductio ad absurdum”, which means a reduction to absurdity.
[28]
[PDF] Euclid's Elements of Geometry - Richard Fitzpatrick
The geometrical constructions employed in the Elements are restricted to those which can be achieved using a straight-rule and a compass.
[29]
2.6 The converse, contrapositive and biconditional
The biconditional , , P ⟺ Q , read as “ P if and only if Q ”, is true when P and Q have the same truth value and false when P and Q take different truth values.
[30]
Implicature - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 6, 2005 · Grice characterized generalized implicatures as those that “would normally (in the absence of special circumstances)” be carried by “the use of ...
[31]
[PDF] LOGIC AND CONVERSATION*
It is a commonplace of philosophical logic that there are, or appear to be, divergences in meaning between, on the one hand, at least.
[32]
[PDF] The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations
GREENBERG, JOSEPH H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Joseph ...
[33]
From Implicational to Quantitative Universals in Word Order Typology
Feb 9, 2021 · This paper develops the concept of word order universals based on a data analysis of the Universal Dependencies project, which proposes ...
[34]
Implicational Universals as Predictors of Word Order Change - jstor
(2) THE UNIVERSAL CONSISTENCY HYPOTHESIS (UCH): At each stage in their historical evolution, languages remain consistent with synchronic universal implications.
[35]
[PDF] David Lewis - Counterfactuals
Counterfactuals. DAVID LEWIS. B BLACKWELL. Publishers. Page 2. Copyright © David Lewis 1973. The right of David Lewis to be identified as the Author of this ...
[36]
[PDF] analysis 23.6 june 1963 - is justified true belief knowledge?
ANALYSIS 23.6 JUNE 1963. IS JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF KNOWLEDGE? By EDMUND L. GETTIER. V ARIOUS attempts have been made in recent years to state necessary and ...
[37]
Consequentialism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 20, 2003 · Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of ...Consequences for Whom... · Arguments for Consequentialism
[38]
Introduction to Logical Theory - Google Books
Title, Introduction to Logical Theory ; Author, Peter Frederick Strawson ; Publisher, Methuen, 1952 ; Original from, Rutgers University ; Digitized, Apr 6, 2023.
[39]
Entailment : the logic of relevance and necessity - Internet Archive
Sep 10, 2019 · Entailment : the logic of relevance and necessity. by: Anderson, Alan Ross. Publication date: 1975. Topics: Entailment (Logic). Publisher ...
[40]
[PDF] Damages for Breach of Contract - NYU Law
I. Damages in General. 2. II. Limitations on Damages. 3. A. Remoteness/Foreseeability. 3. B. Uncertainty. 4. C. Avoidability. 5. III. Liquidated Damages.
[41]
How to specify cause of action and elements using on-point cases
Aug 5, 2025 · 5 – Damage This case stated that every contract implies a duty to be performed by the parties, and in the event of breach, a cause of action ...
[42]
Roman law - Justinian Code, Civil Law, Corpus Juris Civilis
Oct 27, 2025 · The law of the Roman Empire in a state of great confusion. It consisted of two masses that were usually distinguished as old law and new law.
[43]
The Overused Syllogism: Logic, Institutions, and the Integral ...
May 15, 2025 · The syllogism emerged as a political-logical tool in classical Greece, where it was essential for public judgment. In Roman law and Christianity ...
[44]
implied contract | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
An implied-in-fact contract is formed when parties' promises are inferred from their intentional conduct and one party knows or at least has reason to know the ...
[45]
[PDF] 5.02 Terms of a Contract - Mass.gov
In every contract there is an implied covenant, a promise, that the parties will act in good faith and deal fairly with each other. This implied covenant of ...
[46]
Express and Implied Terms - PMC - PubMed Central
Oct 19, 2022 · Express terms are best understood by reference to the truth-conditional content of the parties' agreement; implied terms are derived from express terms by a ...
[47]
The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a ...
[48]
The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center
When adopted, the Clause was understood to mean that the government could deprive a person of rights only according to law applied by a court. Yet since then, ...
[49]
Marbury v. Madison (1803) - National Archives
Sep 15, 2022 · The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of ...Missing: implications | Show results with:implications
[50]
Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Federal Judicial Center |
Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the first case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a law passed by Congress.
[51]
The Use and Limits of Deductive Logic in Legal Reasoning
Nov 7, 2010 · Deductive logic plays a central role in legal reasoning, but logic alone cannot solve hard cases.
[52]
A Causal Calculus for Statistical Research
May 7, 2022 · Pearl, J.. (1995). A Causal Calculus for Statistical Research. Pre-proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence ...
[53]
IX. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses
Aggoune L and Chetouani Y (2016) Neyman–Pearson Test for Fault Detection in the Process Dynamics, Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 10.1007/s11668 ...
[54]
Bayes Factors: Journal of the American Statistical Association
Bayes factors provide a way of incorporating external information into the evaluation of evidence about a hypothesis. •. Bayes factors are very general and do ...