Difference between revisions of "Contrapositive"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added an example)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
For example, let A be the statement "R is a square" and B be the statement "R is a rectangle".  Then A implies B.  The contrapositive of this is the statement "if R is not a rectangle, then R is not a square", which is logically equivalent to the first statement.  On the other hand, the converse is "if R is a rectangle, then R is a square", an implication which isn't even true!
 
For example, let A be the statement "R is a square" and B be the statement "R is a rectangle".  Then A implies B.  The contrapositive of this is the statement "if R is not a rectangle, then R is not a square", which is logically equivalent to the first statement.  On the other hand, the converse is "if R is a rectangle, then R is a square", an implication which isn't even true!
  
{{stub}}
 
 
[[Category:Logic]]
 
[[Category:Logic]]

Revision as of 23:44, December 14, 2009

The contrapositive of a statement of the form "A implies B" is the logically equivalent statement "not-B implies not-A."

Do not confuse the contrapositive with the converse, which is very different and not necessarily true.

For example, let A be the statement "R is a square" and B be the statement "R is a rectangle". Then A implies B. The contrapositive of this is the statement "if R is not a rectangle, then R is not a square", which is logically equivalent to the first statement. On the other hand, the converse is "if R is a rectangle, then R is a square", an implication which isn't even true!