20

I'm having a trouble understanding the concept. Can you give me a math example where $P\Rightarrow Q$ Is true but $P\Leftrightarrow Q$ is false? Thank you.

Rodrigo Sango
  • 279
  • 3
  • 9
  • 8
    $,\big(1 = -1\big) \implies \big(2=2\big);$ is true, but the converse is false. – dxiv Feb 05 '18 at 20:57
  • 5
    If the moon is made of cheese, then what @dxiv said is true. – Shufflepants Feb 06 '18 at 15:46
  • @dxiv Yes, everything, be it true or false, follows from a falsehood (assuming the law of the excluded middle holds). – Dan Christensen Feb 06 '18 at 16:13
  • 3
    Protip: The "official" name for this fallacy is "affirming the consequent." Google that and you'll get loads of examples, many of which have relatively little to do with math. – Kevin Feb 06 '18 at 22:26
  • 1
    "If it is Tuesday then I will go to the gym." This is very different from "I only go the the gym on Tuesday". The important thing to remember in x => y is that it really only works when x is true. If x is not true then the statement doesn't apply so who knows whether y is true or not. – nurdyguy Feb 07 '18 at 15:26
  • Take $P:=x=0$ and $Q:=x<1$. –  Feb 08 '18 at 08:00
  • @nurdyguy "I only go the the gym on Tuesday" suggests that you don't go to the cinema on Tuesday, so I think what you mean is "I go the the gym only on Tuesday"; but even this second sentence can be ambiguous, because it can be read as Tues being a necessary condition, though not a sufficient condition, for gym, i.e., gym⇒Tue instead of gym⇔Tue. – ryang Jun 29 '23 at 06:03
  • @ryang That's a good point. The "only go" could be ambiguous. However, since the context overall was only about if/when I "go to the gym" then whether or not I do anything else that day is inconsequential. – nurdyguy Jun 29 '23 at 17:25
  • @nurdyguy You're replying to my bit before the semicolon; "I only go to the gym on Tuesday" versus "I go only to the gym on Tuesday" versus "I go to the gym only on Tuesday". – ryang Jun 29 '23 at 19:04
  • @ryang Probably best of all (least likely to be ambiguous) would be something like "The only day of the week I go to the gym is Tuesdays." But in the end, who cares? This was just a simple example which suited its purpose 5 years ago. The real question is: Why are you bothering to bring this up now? Why are you nitpicking a comment on a question from over 5 years ago? – nurdyguy Jun 30 '23 at 17:44
  • @nurdyguy No, your latest suggestion is precisely equivalent to what I initially pointed out you meant to say, which, as explained above, can be construed as gym⇒Tue rather than clearly your intended gym⇔Tue. – ryang Jun 30 '23 at 19:05

12 Answers12

48

For real numbers:

$$x > 1$$

implies that $$ x^2 > 1 $$

But $x^2 > 1$ does not imply that $x > 1$. For instance, $(-2)^2 = 4 > 1$, but $-2$ is not greater than $1$.

John Hughes
  • 93,729
36

$x = 2 \implies x \ge 2$ is true.

$x \ge 2 \iff x = 2$ is false.

Umberto P.
  • 52,165
22

An easy one: all squares are rectangles, but not every rectangle is a square.

The fallacy of the converse is something lots of students are guilty of. Remember, to say P implies Q means that if you have P, you have Q. The presence of Q doesn't mean P holds.

Another example: differentiability implies continuity. Every differentiable function is continuous on its domain's interior, but a continuous function need not have a derivative anywhere.

18

Set theory example: let be $A\subset B$ with $A\ne B$. $$x\in A\implies x\in B$$ but $$x\in B\kern.6em\not\kern -.6em \implies x\in A.$$

Almost all the examples of the other answers are particular cases of this.

11

$x=2$ implies that $x$ is even. But $x$ being even does not imply $x=2$.

Mason
  • 631
  • 4
  • 11
7

$$x=-1 \implies x^2 = 1$$ but $$x=-1 \not\Longleftarrow x^2=1$$ because it could be that $x=1$.

boboquack
  • 107
4

We have:

$$P \leftrightarrow Q \Rightarrow P \rightarrow Q$$

but not

$$P \leftrightarrow Q \Leftrightarrow P \rightarrow Q$$

Bram28
  • 100,612
  • 6
  • 70
  • 118
3

For example

it always true that

$$a\ge 2 \implies a^2\ge 4$$

but the following does not hold (eg $a=-3$)

$$a\ge 2 \iff a^2\ge 4$$

user
  • 154,566
3

Imagine the following:

$$\begin{align} a&=1\\ \Leftrightarrow a^2&=a\\ \Leftrightarrow a^2-1&=a-1\\ \Leftrightarrow (a-1)(a+1)&=a-1\\ \Leftrightarrow a+1&=1\\ \Leftrightarrow a&=0 \end{align}$$ Where's the mistake?

In general, $A\Rightarrow B$ means that, in order for $A$ to be true, it is neccessary that $B$ is true, but, nothing is neccessary in order for $A$ to be false.

On the other hand, $A\Leftrightarrow B$ means that, in order for $A$ to be true it is neccessary and sufficient the $B$ is true. So, when $A$ i true so does $B$ and when $A$ is false, so does $B$.

2

$$\mbox{[$(x_n)_n$ bounded sequence in $\Bbb R$] $\implies$ [$(x_n)_n$ has a convergent subsequence]}$$

but the converse is failed just take $$u_{2n}= 2, ~~~and ~~~u_{2n+1} = n^2$$

the subsequence $(u_{2n})_n$ converges but $ (u_{n})_n$ is unbounded.

Guy Fsone
  • 23,903
1

In our beginner math classes we often used real world examples to grasp such concepts before starting with mathematical explanations. For this we used the following example:

$$ snow \Rightarrow cold\\ cold \nLeftrightarrow snow $$

So when it's snowing outside it is definitely cold*. But if it's cold outside, you can not be sure that it is snowing.

* There are theoretically some exceptions to this statement, but for the sake of understanding the concept, they can be ignored.

1

$x=0 \implies x\neq 1$, but

$x=0 \not \Longleftarrow x\neq 1$, because it is possible that $x=2\neq 0$.

klirk
  • 3,634