My statement refers to the construction of ==> from truth tables as a logical gate:
Both (False ==> True) and (False ==> False) are True; everything can follow from false premises
(True ==> True) is True; A true premise always implies a true conclusion
(True ==> False) is False; you cannot infer a falsehood from a truth.
By counting the entries of the table, we see that if Y is True, then (X ==> Y) must always be True no matter what we substitute for X. The joke is that this means we assume foreknowledge of the reader being gay
Ah I see what you mean; you’re right. Though an argument being valid and an implication being true are different things, so I think we misunderstood each other’s meaning.
My statement refers to the construction of ==> from truth tables as a logical gate:
By counting the entries of the table, we see that if Y is True, then (X ==> Y) must always be True no matter what we substitute for X. The joke is that this means we assume foreknowledge of the reader being gay
Ah I see what you mean; you’re right. Though an argument being valid and an implication being true are different things, so I think we misunderstood each other’s meaning.