What's the difference between biconditional iff and logical equivalence?












1














I am confused about the difference between ↔ (biconditional iff) and ≡ (logical equivalence). For instance, p→q can be rewritten as ∼p∨q. Would it be correct to say p→q↔∼p∨q or p→q≡∼p∨q?



Secondly, is ⇔ another symbol for ≡?



Finally, what's the difference between → and ⇒?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    You should look in that book to see what the symbols mean. For example, it could be that $rightarrow$ combines two wffs into a new wff, while $Rightarrow$ is a relation between wffs.
    – GEdgar
    Sep 17 '17 at 0:31










  • The issue is not with the symbols but with the concepts. We have a connective: the biconditional that can produce a "complex" sentence (or formula) from simpler ones: $p leftrightarrow q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:54










  • And we have the relation of logical (or semantical) equivalence between formulas. Logical equivalence is different from the biconditional, although the two concepts are closely related; in a nutshell: $p leftrightarrow q$ is a tautology iff $p$ is logically equivalent to $q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:57
















1














I am confused about the difference between ↔ (biconditional iff) and ≡ (logical equivalence). For instance, p→q can be rewritten as ∼p∨q. Would it be correct to say p→q↔∼p∨q or p→q≡∼p∨q?



Secondly, is ⇔ another symbol for ≡?



Finally, what's the difference between → and ⇒?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    You should look in that book to see what the symbols mean. For example, it could be that $rightarrow$ combines two wffs into a new wff, while $Rightarrow$ is a relation between wffs.
    – GEdgar
    Sep 17 '17 at 0:31










  • The issue is not with the symbols but with the concepts. We have a connective: the biconditional that can produce a "complex" sentence (or formula) from simpler ones: $p leftrightarrow q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:54










  • And we have the relation of logical (or semantical) equivalence between formulas. Logical equivalence is different from the biconditional, although the two concepts are closely related; in a nutshell: $p leftrightarrow q$ is a tautology iff $p$ is logically equivalent to $q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:57














1












1








1


0





I am confused about the difference between ↔ (biconditional iff) and ≡ (logical equivalence). For instance, p→q can be rewritten as ∼p∨q. Would it be correct to say p→q↔∼p∨q or p→q≡∼p∨q?



Secondly, is ⇔ another symbol for ≡?



Finally, what's the difference between → and ⇒?










share|cite|improve this question















I am confused about the difference between ↔ (biconditional iff) and ≡ (logical equivalence). For instance, p→q can be rewritten as ∼p∨q. Would it be correct to say p→q↔∼p∨q or p→q≡∼p∨q?



Secondly, is ⇔ another symbol for ≡?



Finally, what's the difference between → and ⇒?







logic propositional-calculus






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 18 '17 at 6:57









Mauro ALLEGRANZA

64.5k448112




64.5k448112










asked Sep 17 '17 at 0:24









doomblahdoomblah

63




63








  • 2




    You should look in that book to see what the symbols mean. For example, it could be that $rightarrow$ combines two wffs into a new wff, while $Rightarrow$ is a relation between wffs.
    – GEdgar
    Sep 17 '17 at 0:31










  • The issue is not with the symbols but with the concepts. We have a connective: the biconditional that can produce a "complex" sentence (or formula) from simpler ones: $p leftrightarrow q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:54










  • And we have the relation of logical (or semantical) equivalence between formulas. Logical equivalence is different from the biconditional, although the two concepts are closely related; in a nutshell: $p leftrightarrow q$ is a tautology iff $p$ is logically equivalent to $q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:57














  • 2




    You should look in that book to see what the symbols mean. For example, it could be that $rightarrow$ combines two wffs into a new wff, while $Rightarrow$ is a relation between wffs.
    – GEdgar
    Sep 17 '17 at 0:31










  • The issue is not with the symbols but with the concepts. We have a connective: the biconditional that can produce a "complex" sentence (or formula) from simpler ones: $p leftrightarrow q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:54










  • And we have the relation of logical (or semantical) equivalence between formulas. Logical equivalence is different from the biconditional, although the two concepts are closely related; in a nutshell: $p leftrightarrow q$ is a tautology iff $p$ is logically equivalent to $q$.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Sep 18 '17 at 6:57








2




2




You should look in that book to see what the symbols mean. For example, it could be that $rightarrow$ combines two wffs into a new wff, while $Rightarrow$ is a relation between wffs.
– GEdgar
Sep 17 '17 at 0:31




You should look in that book to see what the symbols mean. For example, it could be that $rightarrow$ combines two wffs into a new wff, while $Rightarrow$ is a relation between wffs.
– GEdgar
Sep 17 '17 at 0:31












The issue is not with the symbols but with the concepts. We have a connective: the biconditional that can produce a "complex" sentence (or formula) from simpler ones: $p leftrightarrow q$.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 18 '17 at 6:54




The issue is not with the symbols but with the concepts. We have a connective: the biconditional that can produce a "complex" sentence (or formula) from simpler ones: $p leftrightarrow q$.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 18 '17 at 6:54












And we have the relation of logical (or semantical) equivalence between formulas. Logical equivalence is different from the biconditional, although the two concepts are closely related; in a nutshell: $p leftrightarrow q$ is a tautology iff $p$ is logically equivalent to $q$.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 18 '17 at 6:57




And we have the relation of logical (or semantical) equivalence between formulas. Logical equivalence is different from the biconditional, although the two concepts are closely related; in a nutshell: $p leftrightarrow q$ is a tautology iff $p$ is logically equivalent to $q$.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Sep 18 '17 at 6:57










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














In short, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is statement that could be either true or false. $P equiv Q$ means that $P leftrightarrow Q$ is always a true biconditional (so, $P$ and $Q$ have the same truth value no matter what).



So, one could say that $neg (P vee Q) equiv neg P wedge neg Q$ (DeMorgan's) but you typically wouldn't write $neg (P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



The arrow $Rightarrow$ usually is slang for "implies" but different people use it differently. The arrow $Leftrightarrow$ is usually treated the same way as $leftrightarrow$.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    1














    In case you can use a somewhat philosophical explanation: $leftrightarrow$ is a logical operator within statements, while $equiv$ serves to state an equivalence between statements and thus may be thought of as meta-logical.



    As Randall explained, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is a statement $-$ one statement and a logical statement. The $leftrightarrow$ will cause it to be true under certain truth value distributions for $P$ and $Q$. The same applies to $neg(P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



    For $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ however, you compare two truth tables, the one of $neg(P vee Q)$ and $(neg P wedge neg Q)$, two distinct statements. If and only if both are true exclusively for the same truth value distributions, the equivalence applies and so the meta-logical statement $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ is true.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      1














      Consider this analogy. You wouldn't say the following:




      Prove that 3 + 5.




      You might instead say this:




      Prove that 3 = 5.






      Similarly, following doesn't make sense:




      Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$.




      Instead one of these would be correct:




      Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$ is always true.

      or

      Prove that $p equiv q$.







      share|cite|improve this answer























        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2432462%2fwhats-the-difference-between-biconditional-iff-and-logical-equivalence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        6














        In short, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is statement that could be either true or false. $P equiv Q$ means that $P leftrightarrow Q$ is always a true biconditional (so, $P$ and $Q$ have the same truth value no matter what).



        So, one could say that $neg (P vee Q) equiv neg P wedge neg Q$ (DeMorgan's) but you typically wouldn't write $neg (P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



        The arrow $Rightarrow$ usually is slang for "implies" but different people use it differently. The arrow $Leftrightarrow$ is usually treated the same way as $leftrightarrow$.






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          6














          In short, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is statement that could be either true or false. $P equiv Q$ means that $P leftrightarrow Q$ is always a true biconditional (so, $P$ and $Q$ have the same truth value no matter what).



          So, one could say that $neg (P vee Q) equiv neg P wedge neg Q$ (DeMorgan's) but you typically wouldn't write $neg (P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



          The arrow $Rightarrow$ usually is slang for "implies" but different people use it differently. The arrow $Leftrightarrow$ is usually treated the same way as $leftrightarrow$.






          share|cite|improve this answer
























            6












            6








            6






            In short, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is statement that could be either true or false. $P equiv Q$ means that $P leftrightarrow Q$ is always a true biconditional (so, $P$ and $Q$ have the same truth value no matter what).



            So, one could say that $neg (P vee Q) equiv neg P wedge neg Q$ (DeMorgan's) but you typically wouldn't write $neg (P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



            The arrow $Rightarrow$ usually is slang for "implies" but different people use it differently. The arrow $Leftrightarrow$ is usually treated the same way as $leftrightarrow$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            In short, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is statement that could be either true or false. $P equiv Q$ means that $P leftrightarrow Q$ is always a true biconditional (so, $P$ and $Q$ have the same truth value no matter what).



            So, one could say that $neg (P vee Q) equiv neg P wedge neg Q$ (DeMorgan's) but you typically wouldn't write $neg (P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



            The arrow $Rightarrow$ usually is slang for "implies" but different people use it differently. The arrow $Leftrightarrow$ is usually treated the same way as $leftrightarrow$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Sep 17 '17 at 0:48









            RandallRandall

            9,18611129




            9,18611129























                1














                In case you can use a somewhat philosophical explanation: $leftrightarrow$ is a logical operator within statements, while $equiv$ serves to state an equivalence between statements and thus may be thought of as meta-logical.



                As Randall explained, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is a statement $-$ one statement and a logical statement. The $leftrightarrow$ will cause it to be true under certain truth value distributions for $P$ and $Q$. The same applies to $neg(P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



                For $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ however, you compare two truth tables, the one of $neg(P vee Q)$ and $(neg P wedge neg Q)$, two distinct statements. If and only if both are true exclusively for the same truth value distributions, the equivalence applies and so the meta-logical statement $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ is true.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  1














                  In case you can use a somewhat philosophical explanation: $leftrightarrow$ is a logical operator within statements, while $equiv$ serves to state an equivalence between statements and thus may be thought of as meta-logical.



                  As Randall explained, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is a statement $-$ one statement and a logical statement. The $leftrightarrow$ will cause it to be true under certain truth value distributions for $P$ and $Q$. The same applies to $neg(P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



                  For $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ however, you compare two truth tables, the one of $neg(P vee Q)$ and $(neg P wedge neg Q)$, two distinct statements. If and only if both are true exclusively for the same truth value distributions, the equivalence applies and so the meta-logical statement $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ is true.






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    1












                    1








                    1






                    In case you can use a somewhat philosophical explanation: $leftrightarrow$ is a logical operator within statements, while $equiv$ serves to state an equivalence between statements and thus may be thought of as meta-logical.



                    As Randall explained, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is a statement $-$ one statement and a logical statement. The $leftrightarrow$ will cause it to be true under certain truth value distributions for $P$ and $Q$. The same applies to $neg(P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



                    For $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ however, you compare two truth tables, the one of $neg(P vee Q)$ and $(neg P wedge neg Q)$, two distinct statements. If and only if both are true exclusively for the same truth value distributions, the equivalence applies and so the meta-logical statement $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ is true.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    In case you can use a somewhat philosophical explanation: $leftrightarrow$ is a logical operator within statements, while $equiv$ serves to state an equivalence between statements and thus may be thought of as meta-logical.



                    As Randall explained, $P leftrightarrow Q$ is a statement $-$ one statement and a logical statement. The $leftrightarrow$ will cause it to be true under certain truth value distributions for $P$ and $Q$. The same applies to $neg(P vee Q) leftrightarrow (neg P wedge neg Q)$.



                    For $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ however, you compare two truth tables, the one of $neg(P vee Q)$ and $(neg P wedge neg Q)$, two distinct statements. If and only if both are true exclusively for the same truth value distributions, the equivalence applies and so the meta-logical statement $neg(P vee Q) equiv (neg P wedge neg Q)$ is true.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Sep 17 '17 at 4:51









                    RauteRaute

                    2817




                    2817























                        1














                        Consider this analogy. You wouldn't say the following:




                        Prove that 3 + 5.




                        You might instead say this:




                        Prove that 3 = 5.






                        Similarly, following doesn't make sense:




                        Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$.




                        Instead one of these would be correct:




                        Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$ is always true.

                        or

                        Prove that $p equiv q$.







                        share|cite|improve this answer




























                          1














                          Consider this analogy. You wouldn't say the following:




                          Prove that 3 + 5.




                          You might instead say this:




                          Prove that 3 = 5.






                          Similarly, following doesn't make sense:




                          Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$.




                          Instead one of these would be correct:




                          Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$ is always true.

                          or

                          Prove that $p equiv q$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            1












                            1








                            1






                            Consider this analogy. You wouldn't say the following:




                            Prove that 3 + 5.




                            You might instead say this:




                            Prove that 3 = 5.






                            Similarly, following doesn't make sense:




                            Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$.




                            Instead one of these would be correct:




                            Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$ is always true.

                            or

                            Prove that $p equiv q$.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            Consider this analogy. You wouldn't say the following:




                            Prove that 3 + 5.




                            You might instead say this:




                            Prove that 3 = 5.






                            Similarly, following doesn't make sense:




                            Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$.




                            Instead one of these would be correct:




                            Prove that $p leftrightarrow q$ is always true.

                            or

                            Prove that $p equiv q$.








                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Dec 5 '18 at 7:26

























                            answered Apr 22 '18 at 3:56









                            Silap AliyevSilap Aliyev

                            1136




                            1136






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2432462%2fwhats-the-difference-between-biconditional-iff-and-logical-equivalence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Berounka

                                Sphinx de Gizeh

                                Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...