2

I'm studying cs in germany, I have been going through my script starting with propositional logic. I don't really understand the difference between those. I watched some YT-Videos on the topic but i didn't really helped me differentiate between those. They just sometimes use one or the other.

"Definition" in my own words (my understanding):

  • The script says something like "$A ⇔ B$" gets when "$A ↔ B$" is true. So only if both statements A, B are true or both are false "$A ⇔ B$" would get used.
  • The Term "$A ≡ B$" gets used if two logical Terms (consisting of Variables, Constants, ...) result in a equal logical value.

Example:
$A ↔ B ⇔ (A → B) ∧ (B → A)$
$A ∧ (B ∧ C) ≡ (A ∧ B) ∧ C$.

Problem:When given to "equal" statements they will be right and wrong the same time therefore i can use $⇔$. But they also will have the same logical value so i can use $≡$. I can't really differentiate between them.
Almost a different question. Why do the de morgan laws use ↔, why don't the use one of $≡, ⇔$? $¬(A ∧ B) ↔ (¬A ∨ ¬B)$. English is not my first language and i translated my question mostly by myself. Also its my first time asking a question here.

amWhy
  • 210,739
  • 3
    I've always used them as basically different symbols for the same concept. There might be some reasons to distinguish them, but I have never needed them to be distinguished. I guess you could define $a\iff b$ as $(a\to b)\land (b\to a),$ while we could define $a\equiv b$ as $(a\land b)\lor(\lnot a\land\lnot b).$ Maybe it requires excluded middle to prove these are equivalent? – Thomas Andrews Jun 13 '24 at 20:48
  • Observe that your bullet point summary of ⇔ ↔ ≡ actually says that they are thoroughly interchangeable. They do have different meanings, but even when this is respected, frequently the choice between them is a matter of emphasis anyway. See whether the links in this answer's addendum help make things a bit clearer. – ryang Jun 14 '24 at 05:23

1 Answers1

-3

It will be question of convention on notation, if you want to distinguish two operators, one can set the following.

Indeed here we can note two things :

Preliminary before math

Take two sentences :

  • $X=$ "The first day of the year is 1st January"
  • $Y=$ "The Earth is a planet"

Both $X$ and $Y$ are sentences. They have both a meaning different and independant of each other. And they are both true.

You see here, that we cannot have $X \implies Y$ or $Y \implies X$, it doesn't make any sense. It has no meaning. Recall that we use the notation $X ⇔ Y$ to say ($X \implies Y$ and $Y \implies X$).

So because there are not logical implication (very concrete in very real life), between $X$ and $Y$. So they can't be equivalent (so "$X ⇔ Y$" is not true). Do you agree with that concrete example ?

Yet both $X$ and $Y$ are both true,the first day of the year is 1st January and the Earth is a planet :

So $$ X \equiv Y$$

Meaning is always about a system, a language, which has a real, a concret meaning. Sometimes this language is English, French, German, sometimes its mathematic. Yet, in every language something can be true or can be false (or neither true nor false).

First

$$ ⇔ \text{and} \leftrightarrow $$

are the same object just noted differently.

When you note $A ⇔ B$ it means they have not only the same logical value but also the same meaning.

For example : $$x\in[a,b] ⇔ a \leq x \leq b$$

Secondly

The sign $\equiv$ is just here to say that thing have the same logical value (in binary logic, True or False).

For example :

$$ (\forall \in \mathbb{N}^*, n>1, n-1>0) \equiv (\pi=\pi) $$

Both are true, but have of course not the same meaning.

Moreover

You see that :

$$A= \ "[(\forall \in \mathbb{N}^*, n>1, n-1>0) ⇔ (\pi=\pi)]" $$

is false.

Yet :

$$ B= \ "[(\forall \in \mathbb{N}^*, n>1, n-1>0) \equiv (\pi=\pi)]" $$

is true.

EDX
  • 2,413
  • Can you find a case where the distinction is a real difference? – Thomas Andrews Jun 13 '24 at 20:50
  • Between what and what ? – EDX Jun 13 '24 at 20:50
  • A case where only one of $P\iff Q$ and $P\equiv Q$ is true? – Thomas Andrews Jun 13 '24 at 20:52
  • Ok get your question, yes. – EDX Jun 13 '24 at 20:53
  • you loose me at your second example. Whats the difference between meaning and logical value? Im not saying its wrong... – user1335232 Jun 13 '24 at 21:03
  • Ok I add it. in the answer. – EDX Jun 13 '24 at 21:07
  • i started reading the other linked post from "peterwhy" to check wheter this answeres my question. The top comment says that the difference between ⇔and↔ is that the other one gets used, when φ↔ψ is a tautology. This is what i meant with when ↔ is true, ⇔gets used.

    Maybe i'm wrong, but does this not mean that "⇔and↔ are the same object just noted differently." is not true?

    – user1335232 Jun 13 '24 at 21:13
  • I don't agree. You can have $⇔ $ notation and for instance $A ⇔ B$ being false. – EDX Jun 13 '24 at 21:20
  • Look the top-comment of the link of "peterwhy", " It means whatever your lecturer says it means" by Michael Greinecker, it is actually depending on who is teaching you this, so I don't agree but other people may agree on that notation. So keep it if it helps you to distinguish tautology from others, but in practice using only $\Leftrightarrow$ has personnally always make the job for me, and my academic relatives, for what I know today. – EDX Jun 13 '24 at 21:25
  • ok, i don't know how to resolve this specific question. Whether A⇔B being false is allowed might be a question of different definition? I read you take on the difference between those two. I think i get what you mean. I can see how arguing about implications is a weird way of looking about those statements X an Y. So maybe i can take away from it that its a question of intention. The intention to argue about implication between X and Y is weird in your context. Just applying mathematical rules i can say X ⇔ Y cause i can't disproove the implication with both statements beeing true. – user1335232 Jun 13 '24 at 21:31
  • So concluding they express the same relation (although im not sure if thats the right word in this context) between two Statements. ≡ will get used in a context of defining Statements and ⟺ if i want to point out a relation between two Statements (X⟹Y and Y⟹X). Is that a valid conclusion in your opinion? – user1335232 Jun 13 '24 at 21:36
  • edit: definition might also be the wrong word. you woud disagree that X is defined by Y. – user1335232 Jun 13 '24 at 21:53
  • Ok yes, reading your question better, yes. You can use $\equiv$ when $A$,$B$ are just True or False values e.g. A=True. And $ \Leftrightarrow$ when $A$ and $B$ are 'meaningful assumption'. But $True \Leftrightarrow True$ also. Very depending on your arbitrary choice. – EDX Jun 13 '24 at 22:09