关于实质蕴涵如果A那么B的一些思考.pdfVIP

StudiesinLogic,Vol.6, No. 3 (2013): 81–87 PII:1674-3202(2013)-03-0081-07 ThoughtsaboutMaterial Implication “if then ” Lucian Vintan Computer Electrical Engineering Department, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu lucian.vintan@ulbsibiu.ro Abstract. This paper tries to justify the counter-intuitive definition of material implication in Boolean (Aristotelian) logic. The main question is: what is the link between the metaphor of “implication” in the natural language and its logical definition? Different arguments are presentedinordertobetterunderstandthedefinitionandavoidsomepotentialconfusion. Asa conclusionitisshownthattheonly“acceptable”definitionof seemstobetheclassical one. The main aim of this short paper is to “understand” why material implication (if then ) is defined according to Table 1. One question is: why it is defined in this manner and not in another one? This is the most debated Boolean functionfromthe possiblebinaryfunctions . Its corresponding truth table is the following ( means the logical value of sentence ): Table1 Forsureitwouldbea non-sense tryingtoproveadefinition,becauseitmustbe justconsistent;thismeansthatthedefinedconcept’scontextmustbenotanemptyset. AccordingtoTable1,materiallogicalimplicationdefinitionisconsistent,and,there- fore, itseems to need no comment! From this point of view, my approachmight be considered more “psycho-logica” than logical. However, the effort of “un- derstanding” thisnon-intuitive (counter-intuitive) def