In case of A not taking place there is no way of verifying its relation with B. Therefore if A doesn't take place the claim of 'If A then B' stands unfalsified.
It's helpful to think of the conditional in terms of promising/lying. The only way a conditional is false is if the first part is true and the second false. So, if I a say: IF (A) you give me some money, THEN (B) I'll give you a camera. if (A) then (B), then, the only way I will have lied to you is if you give me the money (A), and I don't give you the camera (~B). What I said wasn't true then. In the case of (A) being false, so, you don't give me the money, then, whether or not I give you anything, I haven't lied, we haven't even let the project get off the ground in a sense, and, if (A) is true and (B) is true, and you give me the money, and I give you the camera, I kept my word, deal done. The only problem, where what I've said is false, and you can call me a liar, is if you give me the money (A) and I don't give you the camera (~B).
No it's correct, because he is using an "or" disjunction (where you can have either one or the other, or both), not an "exor" disjunction (where you can have only one or the other). The symbol for "or" is "v", whereas the symbol for "exor" is "⊻" or in some cases "⊕", so based on the symbol he's using his truth table is correct, however you're right in saying that he does explain it like an exor (either..., or...), and for that case the truth table would be F,T,T,F (or 0, 1, 1, 0).
hey drjasonjcampbell. I haven't looked over your account at the moment, but while I'm thinking about it, I was wondering if you could go into more detail about the more technical aspects of the truth table. I completely understand about looking at it for the first time and wanting to simplify it as much as possible, but I would definitely like to see the more technical side of it. My schools didn't have this high level of education. I'm assuming because of money and lack of passion. Great videos
My professor told me that in conditional, the conclusion part (B) is independent of A if B is true. That's why the argument would still be correct if B is true. But if B is false, A must be false in order to make the argument void, making it a true argument. Only TF would only be F because it is a violation in the first place. Am I right? Is my professor right?
im in symbolic logic now,my final is tomorrow and I am still confused on how to do proofs and proving the truth tables.For some reason "v"or and the backwards 'c" i think thats conditional I cant' break them down to get the conclusion.sucks:/
How is a false premise going to justify a true conclusion? Wouldn't that mean the entire argument is false? Since A doesn't cause B, something else does. How can the statement A->B be true it wasn't "A" that caused "B" but another thing? Is this the same thing as correlation does not equal causation? Like for example, an external factor that happened at the same time as "A" which actually caused "B" but no one knows what the external factor is, so people just assume that the untrue "A" actually caused "B" because even though "A" was false when "A" happened well, so did "B?" Is this statement considered true simply because "B" happened after "A" happened even though "A" was completely false? Is it conclusions that determine whether a statement is true? Because in my eyes, if someone says that if you sacrifice a virgin girl that the drought in California will end, and someone does sacrifice a virgin girl, and it does rain, and the drought does end, surely this does not mean that it was the virgin sacrifice which ended the drought as the claim would make it seem. Surely there was an external factor, outside the false premise -- "the third variable." So, how is this claim true? I would argue that this example proves that A->B when A is false means that A->B is also false. Because it should really read *unknown* --> B to be true, but not A. I want to see the proof for conditionals. I hate being in the dark because "it's too complicated." It's the very same reason I've hated mathematics -- they can't ever explain anything because "we won't understand the explanation."
CONDITIONAL STATEMENT: A = It rains B = I will bring an umbrella Statement = If A then B The only time you can say that I am not true to my word (FALSE) is when it rains (A is true) but I did not bring an umbrella (B is false) If it did not rain (A is false) and I did not bring an umbrella (B is false), then you can't tell me I'm not being true to my word because it did not rain yet in order for you to see if I will bring my umbrella or not! lol
