Article View: sci.logic
Article #545Re: implication truth table
From: Gavan Tredoux
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:56
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:56
16 lines
950 bytes
950 bytes
mclean@itd.nrl.navy.mil (John McLean) writes: : From cmitchell@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil () : >My question is: WHY is the implication relation defined as it is? [some reasons] There are logics that don't allow this paradox of material implication - relevance logics, where the antecedent and consequent have to be relevant to each other for the implication to hold. Of course there are a million and one ways of doing this. Primary strength of classical logic: there's only one. Gavan Tredoux UCT
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Nov19.195642.15296@ucthpx.uct.ac.za>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!psgrain!hippo!ucthpx!elc.mth.uct.ac.za!gavanReferences:
<Bxvq70.CIA@ra.nrl.navy.mil>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.logic Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!psgrain!hippo!ucthpx!elc.mth.uct.ac.za!gavan From: gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux) Subject: Re: implication truth table Sender: news@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (UCT News Admin.) Message-ID: <1992Nov19.195642.15296@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:56:42 GMT References: <Bxvq70.CIA@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Organization: University of Cape Town X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4 Lines: 16