Question

2. Is the binary connective “because” (as in: p because q) a truth functional connective? Why...

2. Is the binary connective “because” (as in: p because q) a truth functional connective?
Why or why not?

Homework Answers

Answer #1

'because' is not truth-functional connective. We can understand it as following type

If We know the truth-values of both P and Q, then it does not tell about the truth-value of 'P because of Q'

For example, the two statements are as follows

'Grass is green' and

'Snow is white'

Both statements are both true,

but 'Grass is green because snow is white' is an invalid argument.

And if we take example

Grass is green because grass is green'

Then it is a true statement ,and it involves two true statements.

This shows that with P and Q both being true, the statement 'P because of Q' can either be true or false, and hence we can conclude that it is not truth-functional.

Please like ??

Know the answer?
Your Answer:

Post as a guest

Your Name:

What's your source?

Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.

Not the answer you're looking for?
Ask your own homework help question
Similar Questions
Define a new logical connective ⋆ as follows: P ⋆ Q is true if P is...
Define a new logical connective ⋆ as follows: P ⋆ Q is true if P is false or Q is false. (That is, P ⋆ Q is only false if P and Q are both true.) Show that the operator ∼ (“not”) and the connectives ∨ (“or”), ∧ (“and”), and =⇒ (“if... then...”) can all be written in terms of ⋆ only. To get you started, ∼ P always has exactly the same truth value as (that is, is logically...
Use a truth table to determine whether the two statements are equivalent. ~p->~q, q->p Construct a...
Use a truth table to determine whether the two statements are equivalent. ~p->~q, q->p Construct a truth table for ~p->~q Construct a truth table for q->p
Philosophy 3. Multiple-Line Truth Functions Compound statements in propositional logic are truth functional, which means that...
Philosophy 3. Multiple-Line Truth Functions Compound statements in propositional logic are truth functional, which means that their truth values are determined by the truth values of their statement components. Because of this truth functionality, it is possible to compute the truth value of a compound proposition from a set of initial truth values for the simple statement components that make up the compound statement, combined with the truth table definitions of the five propositional operators. To compute the truth value...
Let P and Q be statements: (a) Use truth tables to show that ∼ (P or...
Let P and Q be statements: (a) Use truth tables to show that ∼ (P or Q) = (∼ P) and (∼ Q). (b) Show that ∼ (P and Q) is logically equivalent to (∼ P) or (∼ Q). (c) Summarize (in words) what we have learned from parts a and b.
For three statements P, Q and R, use truth tables to verify the following. (a) (P...
For three statements P, Q and R, use truth tables to verify the following. (a) (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (P ⇒ R) ≡ P ⇒ (Q ∧ R). (c) (P ⇒ Q) ∨ (P ⇒ R) ≡ P ⇒ (Q ∨ R). (e) (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ R) ≡ P ⇒ R.
are they logically equivalent (show how) truth table or in word:: a) p —> ( q...
are they logically equivalent (show how) truth table or in word:: a) p —> ( q —> r ) and ( p -> q) —> r b) p^ (q v r ) and ( p ^ q) v ( p ^ r )
MATH LOGICALL TRUTH TABLE/ be able to follow the comment if P implies Q , P...
MATH LOGICALL TRUTH TABLE/ be able to follow the comment if P implies Q , P is false , Q is true , the outcome P implies Q is true. I don't understand becasue P imples Q, if the P is false and Q is true, then the statement P===> Q should be false. Please explain or hold some example in sentences
Write a C++ program to construct the truth table of P || !(Q && R)
Write a C++ program to construct the truth table of P || !(Q && R)
Use a truth table to determine whether the following argument is valid. p →q ∨ ∼r...
Use a truth table to determine whether the following argument is valid. p →q ∨ ∼r q → p ∧ r ∴ p →r
1) Show that ¬p → (q → r) and q → (p ∨ r) are logically...
1) Show that ¬p → (q → r) and q → (p ∨ r) are logically equivalent. No truth table and please state what law you're using. Also, please write neat and clear. Thanks 2) .Show that (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r) → (q ∨ r) is a tautology. No truth table and please state what law you're using. Also, please write neat and clear.