By reading, you agree to the site's
Terms of Service — TL;DR: doubt and fact-check everything I've written!
- ola:: Negating the antecedent, does not necessarily negate the consequent
- @:
INPUT[aliases][] - it’s just a case of flipping the antecedent with the consequent
- eg: unidirectional consequence
- syllogism
- if you are a chef, you have a job
- you are not a chef
- therefore, you have no job
- not bi-conditional
- ❌ FALSE: if—and only if—you are a chef, then you have a job
- ❌ FALSE: if—and only if—you have a job, then you are a chef
- but the inverse+converse is true
- ✅ TRUE: if—and only if—you don’t have a job, then you must not be a chef
- syllogism
- eg: presidency/veto
- syllogism
- if I am POTUS, I can veto Congress
- I am not POTUS
- therefore, I cannot veto Congress
- also satisfies bi-conditionality
- ✅ if—and only if—you are POTUS, then you can veto Congress
- ✅ if—and only if—you can veto Congress, then you are POTUS
- the inverse-converse is also true
- ✅ if—and only if—you cannot veto Congress, then you are not POTUS
- syllogism