Modens Pones, AKA the “if-then” operator.

An AXIOM (assukmed to be true) of formal logic.

If P, then Q
P
Q

The above is valid, and it’s validity is intuitive. To demonstrate with an example:

If I go to Albertson’s, then I will buy an Apple.

I Went to Albertson’s
Therefore I bought an apple:

“If I go to Albertson’s then I will buy an Apple” means that if I happen to pop into an
Albertson’s I will definitely buy an apple. Which means that if I didn’t buy an Apple, I
definetly didn’t pop into an Albertson’s that day. Buying an apple is a necessary
condition of going to Albertsons, but it isn’t a sufficient one, since I may choose to buy
an apple elsewhere. A sufficient condition would be one that guarantees I went to
Albertsons. I can’t really think of any sufficient conditions that aren’t tautologies.

If P then Q
Not P
Not Q

The above argument is invalid, this invalidity is supposed to be intuitive as well.

If I go to Albertson’s then I will buy an Apple

I didn’t go to Albertson’s
Therefore I didn’t buy an Apple.

I could have bought the Apple anywhere, not just Albertsons, all I said was that if I
happened to pop into Albertson’s I would definitely buy an Apple.

If P then Q
Not Q
Not P

If I go to Albertson’s then I will buy an Apple

I didn’t buy an Apple
Therefore, I didn’t go to Albertsons

Since I would definitely buy an apple if I went to Albertson’s the fact that I didn’t means I
definitely did not go to Albertsons.
The problem I have with “if-then” connectors is the only way I can understand them is if
I use an example (like the Albertson’s examples above). But supposedly I can evaluate
them as valid or invalid when just using the “P’s” and “Q’s” above. But if the only way I
can “know” that this form is correct is by using examples, then I don’t really “know” it is
correct. Wait a minute….

He decided to call statements about things that did not actually describe those things
“false” and statements about things that did actually describe those things as “true”. It
might have been that he would have called the former “true” and the latter “false” but this
is what they are named and so, this is how they are used.

The same cavemen said that “If” will mean, “In the case that something occurs” and
“then” will mean that “something else occurs as a result of the previous statement”.

So what comes after “then” the “consequent” is caused by the antecedent.

“if, then” is a way of affirming cause.

If I die, then I will not breath – dying is the cause of breathing stoppage
If I cannot breathe, then I will die – breathing stoppage causes of death.
If I my head is cut off, then I will die –decapitation causes of death

If P, then Q
If Q, then P
If R then P

Different events can lead to the same event: Is this intuitive enough to be an axiom?
Anybody who has taken different route to work would say yes.

Different events can result in the same event.

Therefore, if an event Q results in P, another event R, may also result in P.
Therefore if Q does not occur, P may still occur.
If P does not Occur, and Q and R both result in P, then Q and R did not occur, since if
they had occurred, P would have resulted.

Getting back to whether “Different event can lead to the same event” (let’s call it,
proposition, X) is an axiom;

Attempt to Deny proposition X:

Different events can never lead to the same event.

One thing can be guaranteed by the presence of another thing,
Rewording of X:
Different events can have the same result.

Intuition:
In a maze with two paths and one exit, both paths taken result in the same exit.

Attempt to Deny:

Different events cannot have the same result.

Rewording of X:

Different propositions can lead to the same proposition! Since a proposition’s meaning
can be any statement that declares something:

A leads to X
Y leads to X

This proposition makes no declaration-false

Axiom: A result is never the cause of it’s own causes

Axiom: A result guarantees the existence of its causes.

We’ll, I sure feel stupid, it all comes down to the definitions of necessary and sufficient
conditions.

If a statement is preceded by “then” it is the necessary condition of the statement

preceded by “if” and vice versa. BY DEFINITION.

Necessary BY DEFINITION means a condition that if false, would guarantee the falsity
of the statement it is necessary for. Since if-then means BY DEFINITION P only if Q
then…yeah

P if Q—In Plain Language: If Q, then definitely P but if ~Q, then maybe P

P only if Q—In Plain Language: If ~Q, then definitely ~P but if Q then maybe ~P
P if and only if Q—In Plain Language: if Q, then definitely P and if ~Q then definitely
~P.

Different results can occur from the same event.