Contraries's definition and vacuous truth











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Say,




$A: text{Every Americans use English.}$
$B: text{No American uses English.}$




$A$ and $B$ are said contarary.



People say that A and B are contrary when




A and B can not be both true but



A or B can be true exclusively or



A and B are both false.




($uparrow$ D)



But according to the vacuous truth statements, when we assume a possible world(C) where thee are no Americans at all, A and B can both be true!??



What is wrong with my assumption(C) or the definition (D)?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • We can always write such a statement in the form "If P then Q". Here the statement "All Americans use English" would be "If x is an American then x speaks English" and "If x is an American then x does not speak English". A statement in the form "If P then Q" is said to be "vacuously true" if and only if the hypothesis, P, is false. If there exist no Americans then the hypothesis, "x is an American" must be false so, yes, in that case, both statements are "vacuously true".
    – user247327
    Nov 21 at 12:27










  • This can be of some help tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/…
    – Anupam
    Nov 21 at 12:28















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Say,




$A: text{Every Americans use English.}$
$B: text{No American uses English.}$




$A$ and $B$ are said contarary.



People say that A and B are contrary when




A and B can not be both true but



A or B can be true exclusively or



A and B are both false.




($uparrow$ D)



But according to the vacuous truth statements, when we assume a possible world(C) where thee are no Americans at all, A and B can both be true!??



What is wrong with my assumption(C) or the definition (D)?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • We can always write such a statement in the form "If P then Q". Here the statement "All Americans use English" would be "If x is an American then x speaks English" and "If x is an American then x does not speak English". A statement in the form "If P then Q" is said to be "vacuously true" if and only if the hypothesis, P, is false. If there exist no Americans then the hypothesis, "x is an American" must be false so, yes, in that case, both statements are "vacuously true".
    – user247327
    Nov 21 at 12:27










  • This can be of some help tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/…
    – Anupam
    Nov 21 at 12:28













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Say,




$A: text{Every Americans use English.}$
$B: text{No American uses English.}$




$A$ and $B$ are said contarary.



People say that A and B are contrary when




A and B can not be both true but



A or B can be true exclusively or



A and B are both false.




($uparrow$ D)



But according to the vacuous truth statements, when we assume a possible world(C) where thee are no Americans at all, A and B can both be true!??



What is wrong with my assumption(C) or the definition (D)?










share|cite|improve this question













Say,




$A: text{Every Americans use English.}$
$B: text{No American uses English.}$




$A$ and $B$ are said contarary.



People say that A and B are contrary when




A and B can not be both true but



A or B can be true exclusively or



A and B are both false.




($uparrow$ D)



But according to the vacuous truth statements, when we assume a possible world(C) where thee are no Americans at all, A and B can both be true!??



What is wrong with my assumption(C) or the definition (D)?







logic definition






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 21 at 12:08









KYHSGeekCode

312112




312112












  • We can always write such a statement in the form "If P then Q". Here the statement "All Americans use English" would be "If x is an American then x speaks English" and "If x is an American then x does not speak English". A statement in the form "If P then Q" is said to be "vacuously true" if and only if the hypothesis, P, is false. If there exist no Americans then the hypothesis, "x is an American" must be false so, yes, in that case, both statements are "vacuously true".
    – user247327
    Nov 21 at 12:27










  • This can be of some help tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/…
    – Anupam
    Nov 21 at 12:28


















  • We can always write such a statement in the form "If P then Q". Here the statement "All Americans use English" would be "If x is an American then x speaks English" and "If x is an American then x does not speak English". A statement in the form "If P then Q" is said to be "vacuously true" if and only if the hypothesis, P, is false. If there exist no Americans then the hypothesis, "x is an American" must be false so, yes, in that case, both statements are "vacuously true".
    – user247327
    Nov 21 at 12:27










  • This can be of some help tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/…
    – Anupam
    Nov 21 at 12:28
















We can always write such a statement in the form "If P then Q". Here the statement "All Americans use English" would be "If x is an American then x speaks English" and "If x is an American then x does not speak English". A statement in the form "If P then Q" is said to be "vacuously true" if and only if the hypothesis, P, is false. If there exist no Americans then the hypothesis, "x is an American" must be false so, yes, in that case, both statements are "vacuously true".
– user247327
Nov 21 at 12:27




We can always write such a statement in the form "If P then Q". Here the statement "All Americans use English" would be "If x is an American then x speaks English" and "If x is an American then x does not speak English". A statement in the form "If P then Q" is said to be "vacuously true" if and only if the hypothesis, P, is false. If there exist no Americans then the hypothesis, "x is an American" must be false so, yes, in that case, both statements are "vacuously true".
– user247327
Nov 21 at 12:27












This can be of some help tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/…
– Anupam
Nov 21 at 12:28




This can be of some help tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/…
– Anupam
Nov 21 at 12:28










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













See the Square of opposition.



The relation "being contrary of" is defined in traditional logic for Categorical propositions :




'Contrary' (medieval: contrariae) statements, are such that both cannot at the same time be true.




The issue is with the so-called problem of existential import :




"all $S$ are $P$" implicitly assumes that there are $S$'s in the domain.




In contrast, according to the modern squares of opposition, a view introduced in the 19th century by George Boole, universal claims lack existential import :




In the modern square of opposition, A and O claims are contradictories, as are E and I, but all other forms of opposition cease to hold; there are no contraries, subcontraries, or subalterns.







share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007647%2fcontrariess-definition-and-vacuous-truth%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    See the Square of opposition.



    The relation "being contrary of" is defined in traditional logic for Categorical propositions :




    'Contrary' (medieval: contrariae) statements, are such that both cannot at the same time be true.




    The issue is with the so-called problem of existential import :




    "all $S$ are $P$" implicitly assumes that there are $S$'s in the domain.




    In contrast, according to the modern squares of opposition, a view introduced in the 19th century by George Boole, universal claims lack existential import :




    In the modern square of opposition, A and O claims are contradictories, as are E and I, but all other forms of opposition cease to hold; there are no contraries, subcontraries, or subalterns.







    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      See the Square of opposition.



      The relation "being contrary of" is defined in traditional logic for Categorical propositions :




      'Contrary' (medieval: contrariae) statements, are such that both cannot at the same time be true.




      The issue is with the so-called problem of existential import :




      "all $S$ are $P$" implicitly assumes that there are $S$'s in the domain.




      In contrast, according to the modern squares of opposition, a view introduced in the 19th century by George Boole, universal claims lack existential import :




      In the modern square of opposition, A and O claims are contradictories, as are E and I, but all other forms of opposition cease to hold; there are no contraries, subcontraries, or subalterns.







      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        See the Square of opposition.



        The relation "being contrary of" is defined in traditional logic for Categorical propositions :




        'Contrary' (medieval: contrariae) statements, are such that both cannot at the same time be true.




        The issue is with the so-called problem of existential import :




        "all $S$ are $P$" implicitly assumes that there are $S$'s in the domain.




        In contrast, according to the modern squares of opposition, a view introduced in the 19th century by George Boole, universal claims lack existential import :




        In the modern square of opposition, A and O claims are contradictories, as are E and I, but all other forms of opposition cease to hold; there are no contraries, subcontraries, or subalterns.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        See the Square of opposition.



        The relation "being contrary of" is defined in traditional logic for Categorical propositions :




        'Contrary' (medieval: contrariae) statements, are such that both cannot at the same time be true.




        The issue is with the so-called problem of existential import :




        "all $S$ are $P$" implicitly assumes that there are $S$'s in the domain.




        In contrast, according to the modern squares of opposition, a view introduced in the 19th century by George Boole, universal claims lack existential import :




        In the modern square of opposition, A and O claims are contradictories, as are E and I, but all other forms of opposition cease to hold; there are no contraries, subcontraries, or subalterns.








        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 21 at 12:38









        Mauro ALLEGRANZA

        63.8k448110




        63.8k448110






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007647%2fcontrariess-definition-and-vacuous-truth%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Mont Emei