Filed under: logical implications, Propositional Logic | Tags: modus tollens
((P => Q) ^ not Q) => not P named Modus tollens meaning the way that denies by denying – denying the consequent Q.
If the compound statement (P => Q) ^ not Q) => not P is given and is true (it is always true) and P => Q is true then not Q must be true – therefore not P must be true (see truth table to follow the reasoning).
P => Q (P implies Q true)
^ not Q (true)
========================
then not P is True
In English
P = an intruder is detected
Q = the alarm goes off
(P=>Q) If an intruder is detected, then the alarm goes off.
(^ not Q) and The alarm does not go off.
(=> not P) then, no intruder is detected
said a little more coherently:
If an intruder is detected, the alarm will go off, and when the alarm does not go off, then, no intruder is detected.

see Wikipedia
3 no namers – logical implications
Hypothetical Syllogism – a logical implication
Disjunctive Syllogism – a logical implication
Simplification – a logical implication
Addition – a logical implication
Modus tollens – a logical implication
Modus ponens – a logical implication
Logical Implications
Filed under: logical implications, Propositional Logic | Tags: add, addition, disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism, logical implications, modus ponens, modus tollens, simplification
logical implications are used as rules of inference. Implications are (tautologies) of propositional logic. They are simple to prove by constructing truth tables for them that show the tautologies. more implication explanations and some simple exercises at the end of that page
Examples of usage:
Law of Excluded Middle: Proof in Tarski’s propositional calculus.
3 no namers – logical implications
Hypothetical Syllogism – a logical implication
Disjunctive Syllogism – a logical implication
Simplification – a logical implication
Addition – a logical implication
Modus tollens – a logical implication
Modus ponens – a logical implication
Logical Implications