2

Modus ponens is stated $$((P \implies Q) \land P) \implies Q$$ But isn't $(P \implies Q) = (\lnot P \lor Q)$?

Then we get $((P \implies Q) \land P) \implies Q$ $= (\lnot P \lor Q) \land P$ $= (\lnot P \land P) \lor (P \land Q)$ $= \text{False} \lor (P \land Q)$ $= P \land Q$ So $P\land Q$, not just $Q$. Why do we say that modus ponens then just implies $Q$?

Parcly Taxel
  • 103,344

1 Answers1

3

Yes, indeed, $P$ and $Q$ are both implied by $P$ and $P\to Q$.   In fact, $P$ and $Q$ and $P\to Q$ are all implied by $P$ and $P\to Q$.

However, we're most interested in learning new things.   $Q$ is new thing we learn from knowing $P$ and $P\to Q$.   It is not the only thing, but it is the new thing.

It is useful to know this, so we give the rule of inference a special name: "modus ponens".

Graham Kemp
  • 129,094