A New Material Implication?

Mr. Nance,

Question regarding the ten rules of replacement. Earlier we learned that a conditional can be rewritten as ∼(p • ∼q). Why is this not included as a replacement for a conditional? Both p ⊃ q and ∼(p • ∼q) are equivalent.

For no reason other than tradition. Frankly, were I to rewrite the text, I would do exactly that.

Blessings!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *