Back To Course

Math 102: College Mathematics14 chapters | 108 lessons

Watch short & fun videos
**Start Your Free Trial Today**

Start Your Free Trial To Continue Watching

As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 55,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.

Free 5-day trial
Your next lesson will play in
10 seconds

Lesson Transcript

Instructor:
*Christopher Muscato*

Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado.

Logical statements can be useful, but only if we are able to determine their validity. In this lesson, we'll look at the various forms of a logical statement and see how they relate to each other.

How do you know if something is true? When you think about it, it is a really important question. We like truth. . . we like to know when things are true. . . so how do you know? There are two main ways: First, something can be factual. Secondly, it can be logical. Some things we know to be true because it is logical that they are true.

The art and science of logic is one with deep roots in Western history and philosophy, and over the millennia, we've developed a few handy rules for testing the truth of logic. One such rule is that of **logical equivalence**, or the mutually supported logic between two statements. Imagine that I said:

*If I were sitting on my floor, I'd be at home.*

Then, imagine if I said:

*If I were not in my home, I would not be sitting on my floor.*

Those two statements are logical equivalences - they contain the same logical content. This is how we construct logical equivalences. We create a:

**Hypothesis**:*If I were sitting on my floor***Conclusion**:*I'd would be in my home*

and compare them, then do the same for a second statement. So how do we know what's true? It's just logic. . .

There are many ways we can talk about logical equivalences, but let's focus on four of the most common:

Imagine if I said the conditional phrase:

*If I were sitting on my floor, then I would be at home.*

That is logically accurate. Now try this:

*If I were at home, I would be sitting on my floor.*

This new phrase is what we call the **converse** of the original statement. The converse is created by switching the hypothesis and conclusion, and as you can see, it changes the logic of the sentence. Even though the logical converse of our original statement contains the same words, it does not necessarily contain the same truth value or logical content. In the first sentence, sitting on your floor means you must be in your home; however, the converse is not necessarily true: you can be in your home but not sitting on your floor. I mean, have you heard of furniture? Sit on a chair! The converse may be true but is not always true.

The next way we can test for logical equivalences is to find the logical **inverse** of the conditional statement. The inverse is the negative form of the conditional in which both hypothesis and conclusion are negated. So, if our conditional statement is:

*If I were sitting on my floor, then I would be at home.*

Then, the inverse would be:

*If I were not sitting on my floor, then I would not be at home.*

As with the logical converse, the logical inverse does not necessarily hold the same truth value as the conditional statement: it is, in fact, possible to be standing on the floor and still be at home. But wait - there's more. . .

While the inverse and conditional phrases are not necessarily logically equivalent, what happens if we compare the inverse with the converse? Here's our converse phrase again:

*If I were at home, then I would be sitting on my floor.*

And here's our inverse phrase:

*If I were not sitting on my floor, then I would not be at home.*

If the converse statement is true, then the inverse has to also be true, and vice versa. Likewise, if the converse statement is false, then the inverse statement must also be false and vice versa. The logical converse and inverse of the same conditional statement are logically equivalent to each other.

Okay, enough with the warm-up, now it's time to get really weird. The converse flips a statement and the inverse negates it, but what if we do both? The logical **contrapositive** of a conditional statement is created by negating the hypothesis and conclusion, then switching them.

So, if our conditional is the statement that:

*If I were sitting on my floor, then I would be at home.*

Then the contrapositive would be:

*If I were not in my home, I would not be sitting on the floor.*

The logical contrapositive and the conditional statement are logically equivalent. They both contain the same logical content and truth value. If one is true, then the other absolutely must be true as well.

There is one more way we should also consider logical equivalence. When trying to determine whether or not a statement is logically true, it can be useful to employ a **counterexample**, or an easily understood substitute to examine the validity of the logic. Basically, we see if we are able to turn this logical statement into an obvious falsehood. Counterexamples are used to test the logical validity of a claim not its factual accuracy. If one counterexample can be found, then the claim is not always true and is not logically valid.

Let's look at an example of this. Our argument is that:

*If I am sitting on my floor, I am home.But I'm not sitting on my floor, so I am not home.*

The first step to building a counterexample is to break apart this argument:

*If I am sitting on my floor, I am home*: That statement is true.*I'm not sitting on my floor*: That statement is also true.*I am not home*: This may be factually true but is it logically valid?

To test this, let's substitute the middle part of this argument for a related but also true statement like: *I am sitting on my couch.*

Now, if we put the entire argument back together, it reads:

*If I am sitting on my floor, I am home.But I'm sitting on my couch, so I am not home.*

Do you see what we did? By substituting a portion of the argument, we made the last claim false. It proves that the two statements are not logically valid and, therefore, not logical equivalents. It's logic. . .

In examining issues of logic, one thing we often do is look at **logical equivalence**, the mutually supported logic between two statements. Statements which are logically equivalent both contain the same truth value and logical content. There are a few ways to examine this.

A conditional statement can be compared to the logical **converse** by switching the hypothesis and conclusion. The conditional and converse are not necessarily logically equivalent. The conditional can also be compared to its **inverse**, by negating the hypothesis and conclusion. These are also not logically equivalent although the converse and the inverse are logical equivalents to each other.

The logical **contrapositive** can be found by negating the hypothesis and conclusion, then switching them. This statement is logically equivalent to the conditional statement. Whether or not these are logically valid, can be tested with a **counterexample**, in which part of the argument is replaced with an easily understood substitute. Through these we can begin to understand what is true and what is not - all thanks to logic.

To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.

Create
your account

Already a member? Log In

BackDid you know… We have over 95 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 2,000 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.

To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page

Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Study.com has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.

You are viewing lesson
Lesson
7 in chapter 11 of the course:

Back To Course

Math 102: College Mathematics14 chapters | 108 lessons

- Critical Thinking and Logic in Mathematics 4:27
- Logical Fallacies: Hasty Generalization, Circular Reasoning, False Cause & Limited Choice 4:47
- Logical Fallacies: Appeals to Ignorance, Emotion or Popularity 8:53
- Propositions, Truth Values and Truth Tables 9:49
- Logical Math Connectors: Conjunctions and Disjunctions 3:39
- Conditional Statements in Math 4:54
- Logic Laws: Converse, Inverse, Contrapositive & Counterexample 7:09
- Go to Logic

- Go to Sets

- Go to Geometry

- Marketing 102: Intro to Digital Marketing
- Native Son Study Guide
- UExcel Financial Accounting: Study Guide & Test Prep
- DSST Money & Banking: Study Guide & Test Prep
- DSST Management Information Systems: Study Guide & Test Prep
- Understanding Receivables in Accounting
- Liabilities in Accounting
- Inventory Management in Accounting
- The Operating Cycle in Accounting
- Information Systems, Privacy & Security
- SBEC Technology Application Standards for Teachers
- How to Find Financial Aid for Teachers
- New Mexico State Standards for Science
- ELL Services in Massachusetts
- Publications for ESL Teachers
- WIDA Can Do Descriptors for Grades 9-12
- WV Next Generation Standards for Science

- 'The Horror! The Horror!' in Heart of Darkness
- What Is Marketing Strategy? - Examples & Objectives
- Labor Rate Variance: Definition & Formula
- The Book Thief Vocabulary
- Conditions of Freedom Essay Topics
- The Quiet American Essay Topics
- Pelvic Fracture: Complications, Treatment & Recovery
- Noun-Clause Activities & Games
- Quiz & Worksheet - Symbols & Symbolism in Orwell's 1984
- Quiz & Worksheet - Analyzing the Setting of Heart of Darkness
- Quiz & Worksheet - Understanding Multidomestic Strategy
- Quiz & Worksheet - Cult Leader Description
- Quiz & Worksheet - Configuration Management Process & Tools
- Regression & Correlation Flashcards
- Statistical Calculations for Business Flashcards

- NY Regents Exam - Earth Science: Help and Review
- Common Core ELA Grade 8 - Writing: Standards
- Nutritional Science for Teachers: Professional Development
- Common Core ELA Grade 8 - Language: Standards
- Psychology: High School
- Glencoe Chemistry - Matter And Change Chapter 2: Analyzing Data
- Waves for the MCAT: Tutoring Solution
- Quiz & Worksheet - The Planned Change Process
- Quiz & Worksheet - Theory X & Theory Y Managers
- Quiz & Worksheet - Solutions, Electrolytes and Nonelectrolytes
- Quiz & Worksheet - The Arrhenius Definition
- Quiz & Worksheet - Surrender at Appomattox Courthouse Terms & Conditions

- Market Orientation and Sales Orientation: Definition and Differences
- Angelman Syndrome: Definition, Symptoms & Causes
- Air Pressure Experiments for Kids
- Pop Art Lesson Plan
- Manifest Destiny Lesson Plan
- How to Teach English Abroad
- Enlightenment Lesson Plan
- Cold War Lesson Plan
- Listening Activities for Kids
- Special Education Advocacy Groups
- Creative Writing Exercises for Middle School
- Is the TAP Test Hard?

Browse by subject