Only If I

Only If I

[Login to edit this page]

In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, if and only if (shortened iff) is a biconditional logical connective between statements. In that it is biconditional, the connective can be likened to the standard material conditional ("if") combined with its reverse ("only if"); hence the name. The result is that the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other, i.e., either both statements are true, or both are false. It is controversial whether the connective thus defined is properly rendered by the English "if and only if", with its pre-existing meaning. Of course, there is nothing to stop us stipulating that we may read this connective as "only if and if", although this may lead to confusion.

In writing, phrases commonly used, with debatable propriety, as alternatives to "if and only if" include Q is necessary and sufficient for P, P is equivalent (or materially equivalent) to Q (compare material implication), P precisely if Q, P precisely (or exactly) when Q, P exactly in case Q, and P just in case Q. Many authors regard "iff" as unsuitable in formal writing; others use it freely.[citation needed]

In logic formulae, logical symbols are used instead of these phrases; see the discussion of notation.

The truth table of p ↔ q is as follows:

Note that it is equivalent to that produced by the XNOR gate, and opposite to that produced by the XOR gate.

The corresponding logical symbols are "↔", "⇔" and "≡", and sometimes "iff". These are usually treated as equivalent. However, some texts of mathematical logic (particularly those on first-order logic, rather than propositional logic) make a distinction between these, in which the first, ↔, is used as a symbol in logic formulas, while ⇔ is used in reasoning about those logic formulas (e.g., in metalogic).

Another term for this logical connective is exclusive nor.

In most logical systems, one proves a statement of the form "P iff Q" by proving "if P, then Q" and "if Q, then P" (or the inverse of "if P, then Q", i.e. "if not P, then not Q"). Proving this pair of statements sometimes leads to a more natural proof, since there are not obvious conditions in which one would infer a biconditional directly. An alternative is to prove the disjunction "(P and Q) or (not-P and not-Q)", which itself can be inferred directly from either of its disjuncts — that is, because "iff" is truth-functional, "P iff Q" follows if P and Q have both been shown true, or both false.

Usage of the abbreviation "iff" first appeared in print in John L. Kelley's 1955 book General Topology. Its invention is often credited to the mathematician Paul Halmos.

Sufficiency is the inverse of necessity. That is to say, given P→Q (i.e. if P then Q), P would be a sufficient condition for Q, and Q would be a necessary condition for P. Also, given P→Q, it is true that ¬Q→¬P (where ¬ is the negation operator, i.e. "not"). This means that the relationship between P and Q, established by P→Q, can be expressed in the following, all equivalent, ways:


0 Comments

Write a comment

Rating:    

Share On Facebook
Search And Find
Epik Search:

Related Clips for Only If I

Join The Epik Network
Join Now:

Browse The Epik Network

  • Ellenchan

    Sainsbury

    Onlyifi

    Sistine

    13thapostle

    Cherylpaul

    Halborland

    Rescuedog

    Janetyellen

    Kimzmeskal

    Skiphinnant

    Rhome

    Shoretemple

    Salem-ohio

    Soehokgie

    Elisacarrio

    Felicebeato

    Pistas

    74

    Jadepuget

    Robertbork