I do not understand the difference between $\rightarrow$ and $\Rightarrow$. Sometimes I see implication truth tables labeled with the former, sometimes with the latter.
Aren't they synonyms of logical implication or is there any difference?
Asked
Active
Viewed 7,757 times
5 Answers
18
Usually, $\Rightarrow$ denotes implication in the metalanguage, whereas $\rightarrow$ denotes implication in the formal language that you want to talk about. For example, $$M \models \sigma \rightarrow \tau \ \Rightarrow \ M \models \rho$$ is translated as "if $M$ is a model of $\sigma \rightarrow \tau$, then $M$ is a model of $\rho$".
Sumac
- 769
-
Thank you @Sumac. That answer helped me much. – NilsK Nov 28 '20 at 15:30
14
There is no universally observed difference between the two symbols.
$\Rightarrow$ tends to be used more often in undergraduate instruction, where the logical symbols are used to explain and elucidate ordinary mathematical arguments -- for example, in real analysis.
$\to$ tends to be favored in formal mathematical logic, where the focus is modeling ordinary mathematical arguments as formal mathematical objects that follow precise rules and can be studied as a subject in themselves.
But this split is not observed by all authors, and you cannot expect that a random text you encounter will be following it.
hmakholm left over Monica
- 286,031
-
Ackermann introduced $\small \longrightarrow$ in Germany in 1936, Bourbaki introduced $\small \Longrightarrow$ in France in 1954 (source). There is no difference in the meaning. I learned math in France, where the only symbol used for implication is $\small \Longrightarrow$, and the single line arrow is used for a limit, or a mapping, etc. See this higher math textbook extract. – mins Nov 07 '23 at 16:12
12
There's a subtle difference. "$P\rightarrow Q$" is the statement that $P$ implies $Q$, which may be a true or false statement. "$P \Rightarrow Q$" is the assertion that $P\rightarrow Q$ is true.
-
2But what's the difference? Any assertion may be a true or false statement. – Dan Brumleve Jun 26 '17 at 15:52
-
3@DanBrumleve When you say $P\Rightarrow Q$, you're saying it's not false. – B. Goddard Jun 26 '17 at 15:59
-
2Then what are you saying when you say $P \rightarrow Q$? Maybe you are saying $P \rightarrow Q$ should be used as a term rather than a formula, so it's not something you can say or assert, but I don't think this is very clear. – Dan Brumleve Jun 26 '17 at 22:08
-
3@DanBrumleve I said it was a subtle difference. "$P\rightarrow Q$" can be part of a more complex statement. The $\rightarrow$ is a connective like AND and OR, eve though we read it as a verb. The $\Rightarrow$ is a verb. – B. Goddard Jun 26 '17 at 22:34
8
As others have said, in practice both are used for the material conditional, and I certainly wouldn't want to say that someone is 'wrong' in using the one symbol rather than the other, but personally I have my reasons for separating between the two:
I use $\rightarrow$ for the material implication, so that I can use the $\Rightarrow$ for logical implication. For example, I would use $P \land Q \Rightarrow P$ to make the meta-logical statement that the logic statement $P$ is logically implied by the logic statement $P \land Q$. Likewise, I use $\leftrightarrow$ for the material biconditional, and $\Leftrightarrow$ to express logical equivalence. For example: $P \leftrightarrow Q \Leftrightarrow Q \leftrightarrow P$ expresses the meta-logical statement that the logic statement $P \leftrightarrow Q$ is logically equivalent to the logic statement $Q \leftrightarrow P$ (of course, some use $\equiv$ to express logical equivalence, but I have also seen $\equiv$ used to express the material conditional ...)
In short: people use different symbols, and that's just fine as long as you make clear what they mean and how you use them, but to me the single horizontal line signals something about the syntax of logic, while the double line to me signals something semantical. Indeed, in my eyes this distinction mirrors the distinction between $\vdash$ and $\vDash$ where $\vdash$ is about purely syntactical derivations, and the $\vDash$ is about semantical implication.
Bram28
- 100,612
- 6
- 70
- 118
-
2as a non english native i have to ask what is the difference between material implication and logical implication. i have not heard about differnt kinds of implications before, just the one with the truth table. – peter Nov 24 '20 at 12:39
-
2@Peter A statement like $ P \to Q$ can certainly be true in some world (possibly our world): there is a row in the truth-table where that statement is true, and tgat row corresponds to a certain (class of) world. So, you can say that in that world, $P$ materially implies $Q$. However, $P$ does not logically imply $Q$ ... because in a truth-table there is also a row (a different row) where $P$ is true but $Q$ is false.
Also note that $P \to Q$ is a single logic statement, whereas logical implication is a meta-logic statement: a statement about two logic statements and how they relate.
– Bram28 Nov 24 '20 at 13:53 -
Is it correct to say that $P\Rightarrow Q$ means "$P \rightarrow Q$ is a tautology"? – Stefan Octavian Jan 16 '21 at 13:26
-
@StefanOctavian I wouldn't say that it means that. To me, $ P \Rightarrow Q$ means that $Q$ is a logical consequence of $P$ ... or that $P$ logically implies $Q$. However, as a meta-logical theorem it is true that $P \Rightarrow Q$ if and only if $P \to Q$ is a tautology. – Bram28 Jan 16 '21 at 13:52
7
As far as I'm aware, these two symbols mean the same thing. In my limited experience, Logicians seem to use "$\rightarrow$", while people not studying logic seem to use $"\implies"$ more often.
Alekos Robotis
- 26,184
-
7In particular, authors who have call to use $\to$ a lot in reference to functions will often use $\Rightarrow$ to avoid overloading one symbol. – Malice Vidrine Jun 26 '17 at 15:31
-
2@MaliceVidrine: But on the other hand, authors making use of the Curry-Howard correspondence will want to use $\to$ for both function types and implications. – hmakholm left over Monica Jun 26 '17 at 15:33
-
@HenningMakholm Even with the Curry-Howard correspondence, there's often actual as well as conventional reasons to make the distinction. For example, both Coq and HoTT have an explicit notion of "proposition" distinct from (an arbitrary) type. NuPRL doesn't have this distinction, but still defines notational variants for clarity of intent. – Derek Elkins left SE Jun 26 '17 at 21:49