Logical connective

39 languages
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Logical operators)

For other logical symbols, see List of logic symbols.

Logical connectives

AND 𝐴∧𝐵
,
𝐴⋅𝐵
,
𝐴𝐵
,
𝐴&𝐵
,
𝐴&&𝐵

equivalent 𝐴≡𝐵
,
𝐴⇔𝐵
,
𝐴⇋𝐵

implies 𝐴⇒𝐵
,
𝐴⊃𝐵
,
𝐴→𝐵

NAND 𝐴∧¯𝐵
,
 𝐴↑𝐵
,
𝐴∣𝐵
,
𝐴⋅𝐵¯

nonequivalen 𝐴≢𝐵
t ,
𝐴⇎𝐵
,
𝐴↮𝐵

NOR 𝐴∨¯𝐵
,
𝐴↓𝐵
,
𝐴+𝐵¯

NOT ¬𝐴
,
−𝐴
,
𝐴¯
,
∼𝐴

OR 𝐴∨𝐵
,
𝐴+𝐵
,
𝐴∣𝐵
,
𝐴∥𝐵

XNOR 𝐴 XNOR 𝐵

XOR 𝐴∨_𝐵
,
𝐴⊕𝐵

converse 𝐴⇐𝐵
,
𝐴⊂𝐵
,
 𝐴←𝐵

Related concepts

● Propositional calculus
● Predicate logic
● Boolean algebra
● Truth table
● Truth function
● Boolean function
● Functional completeness

Applications

● Digital logic
● Programming languages
● Mathematical logic
● Philosophy of logic

Category

● V
● T
● E
 Hasse diagram of logical connectives.

In logic, a logical connective (also called a logical operator, sentential connective, or

sentential operator) is a logical constant. Connectives can be used to connect logical
formulas. For instance in the syntax of propositional logic, the binary connective

can be used to join the two atomic formulas

and

, rendering the complex formula

𝑃∨𝑄
 .

Common connectives include negation, disjunction, conjunction, implication, and

equivalence. In standard systems of classical logic, these connectives are interpreted as
truth functions, though they receive a variety of alternative interpretations in
nonclassical logics. Their classical interpretations are similar to the meanings of natural
language expressions such as English "not", "or", "and", and "if", but not identical.
Discrepancies between natural language connectives and those of classical logic have
motivated nonclassical approaches to natural language meaning as well as approaches
which pair a classical compositional semantics with a robust pragmatics.

A logical connective is similar to, but not equivalent to, a syntax commonly used in
[1][better source needed]
programming languages called a conditional operator.

Overview[edit]

In formal languages, truth functions are represented by unambiguous symbols. This

allows logical statements to not be understood in an ambiguous way. These symbols are
called logical connectives, logical operators, propositional operators, or, in classical
logic, truth-functional connectives. For the rules which allow new well-formed formulas
to be constructed by joining other well-formed formulas using truth-functional
connectives, see well-formed formula.

Logical connectives can be used to link zero or more statements, so one can speak
about n-ary logical connectives. The boolean constants True and False can be thought of
as zero-ary operators. Negation is a 1-ary connective, and so on.

Symbol, name Truth Ve

nn
table
dia
gra
m

Zeroary connectives (constants)

⊤ Truth/tautology 1
⊥ Falsity/ 0
contradiction

Unary connectives

� 0 1

Proposition 0 1

¬ Negation 1 0

Binary connectives

� 0 1

� 0 1 0 1
 �

Proposition 0 0 1 1

Proposition 0 1 0 1

∧ Conjunction 0 0 0 1

↑ Alternative 1 1 1 0
denial

∨ Disjunction 0 1 1 1

↓ Joint denial 1 0 0 0
 → Material 1 1 0 1
conditional

↮ Exclusive or 0 1 1 0

↔ Biconditional 1 0 0 1

← Converse 1 0 1 1
implication

More information

List of common logical connectives[edit]

[2]
Commonly used logical connectives include the following ones.

● Negation (not):
● ¬
● ,
● ∼
● ,
● 𝑁
● (prefix) in which
● ¬
● is the most modern and widely used, and
● ∼
● is used by many people too;
● Conjunction (and):
● ∧
● ,
● &
● ,
● 𝐾
● (prefix) in which
● ∧
● is the most modern and widely used;
● Disjunction (or):
● ∨
● ,
● 𝐴
● (prefix) in which
● ∨
● is the most modern and widely used;
● Implication (if...then):
● →
● ,
● ⊃
● ,
● ⇒
● ,
● 𝐶
● (prefix) in which
● →
● is the most modern and widely used, and
● ⊃
● is used by many people too;
● Equivalence (if and only if):
● ↔
● ,
● ⊂⊃
● ,
● ⇔
● ,
● ≡
● ,
● 𝐸
● (prefix) in which
● ↔
● is the most modern and widely used, and
● ⊂⊃
● may be also a good choice compared to
● ⊃
● denoting implication just like
● ↔
● to
● →
● .
For example, the meaning of the statements it is raining (denoted by

) and I am indoors (denoted by

) is transformed, when the two are combined with logical connectives:

● It is not raining (
● ¬𝑝
● );
● It is raining and I am indoors (
● 𝑝∧𝑞
● );
● It is raining or I am indoors (
● 𝑝∨𝑞
● );
● If it is raining, then I am indoors (
● 𝑝→𝑞
● );
● If I am indoors, then it is raining (
● 𝑞→𝑝
● );
● I am indoors if and only if it is raining (
● 𝑝↔𝑞
● ).

It is also common to consider the always true formula and the always false formula to be
connective (in which case they are nullary).

● True formula:
● ⊤
● ,
● 1
● ,
● 𝑉
● (prefix), or
● T
● ;
● False formula:
● ⊥
● ,
 ● 0
● ,
● 𝑂
● (prefix), or
● F
● .

This table summarizes the terminology:

Connective In English Noun for parts Verb phrase

Conjunction Both A and B conjunct A and B are

conjoined

Disjunction Either A or B, or both disjunct A and B are

disjoined

Negation It is not the case that negatum/negand A is negated

A

Conditional If A, then B antecedent, B is implied by A

consequent

Biconditional A if, and only if, B equivalents A and B are

equivalent

History of notations[edit]

● Negation: the symbol

● ¬
[3][4]
● appeared in Heyting in 1930 (compare to Frege's symbol ⫟ in his
[5]
Begriffsschrift ); the symbol
● ∼
 [6]
● appeared in Russell in 1908; an alternative notation is to add a horizontal
line on top of the formula, as in
● 𝑝¯
● ; another alternative notation is to use a prime symbol as in
● 𝑝′
● .
● Conjunction: the symbol
● ∧
[3]
● appeared in Heyting in 1930 (compare to Peano's use of the set-theoretic
notation of intersection
● ∩
[7]
● ); the symbol
● &
[8]
● appeared at least in Schönfinkel in 1924; the symbol
● ⋅
● comes from Boole's interpretation of logic as an elementary algebra.
● Disjunction: the symbol
● ∨
[6]
● appeared in Russell in 1908 (compare to Peano's use of the set-theoretic
notation of union
● ∪
● ); the symbol
● +
● is also used, in spite of the ambiguity coming from the fact that the
● +
● of ordinary elementary algebra is an exclusive or when interpreted logically
in a two-element ring; punctually in the history a
● +
[9]
● together with a dot in the lower right corner has been used by Peirce.
● Implication: the symbol
● →
[10]: 76
● appeared in Hilbert in 1918;
● ⊃
[6]
● was used by Russell in 1908 (compare to Peano's Ɔ the inverted C);
● ⇒
[11]
● appeared in Bourbaki in 1954.
● Equivalence: the symbol
● ≡
[12]
● in Frege in 1879;
● ↔
[13]
● in Becker in 1933 (not the first time and for this see the following);
● ⇔
[14]
● appeared in Bourbaki in 1954; other symbols appeared punctually in the
history, such as
 ● ⊃⊂
[15]
● in Gentzen,
● ∼
[8]
● in Schönfinkel or
● ⊂⊃
[16]
● in Chazal,
● True: the symbol
● 1
● comes from Boole's interpretation of logic as an elementary algebra over the
two-element Boolean algebra; other notations include
● V
● (abbreviation for the Latin word "verum") to be found in Peano in 1889.
● False: the symbol
● 0
● comes also from Boole's interpretation of logic as a ring; other notations
include
● Λ
● (rotated
● V
● ) to be found in Peano in 1889.

Some authors used letters for connectives:

u.

for conjunction (German's "und" for "and") and

o.

[17]
for disjunction (German's "oder" for "or") in early works by Hilbert (1904);

𝑁𝑝

for negation,

𝐾𝑝𝑞

for conjunction,

𝐷𝑝𝑞
 for alternative denial,

𝐴𝑝𝑞

for disjunction,

𝐶𝑝𝑞

for implication,

𝐸𝑝𝑞

for biconditional in Łukasiewicz in 1929.

Redundancy[edit]

Such a logical connective as converse implication "

" is actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the classical equivalence between

¬𝑝∨𝑞

and

𝑝→𝑞

. Therefore, a classical-based logical system does not need the conditional

operator "

" if "

¬
 " (not) and "

" (or) are already in use, or may use the "

" only as a syntactic sugar for a compound having one negation and one disjunction.

There are sixteen Boolean functions associating the input truth values

and

[18]
with four-digit binary outputs. These correspond to possible choices of binary
logical connectives for classical logic. Different implementations of classical logic can
choose different functionally complete subsets of connectives.

One approach is to choose a minimal set, and define other connectives by some logical
form, as in the example with the material conditional above. The following are the
minimal functionally complete sets of operators in classical logic whose arities do not
exceed 2:

One element

{↑}

{↓}

Two elements

{∨,¬}

,
{∧,¬}

{→,¬}

{←,¬}

{→,⊥}

{←,⊥}

{→,↮}

{←,↮}

{→,↛}

{→,↚}

{←,↛}

{←,↚}
 ,

{↛,¬}

{↚,¬}

{↛,⊤}

{↚,⊤}

{↛,↔}

{↚,↔}

Three elements

{∨,↔,⊥}

{∨,↔,↮}

{∨,↮,⊤}

{∧,↔,⊥}
 ,

{∧,↔,↮}

{∧,↮,⊤}

Another approach is to use with equal rights connectives of a certain convenient and
functionally complete, but not minimal set. This approach requires more propositional
axioms, and each equivalence between logical forms must be either an axiom or
provable as a theorem.

The situation, however, is more complicated in intuitionistic logic. Of its five connectives,
{∧, ∨, →, ¬, ⊥}, only negation "¬" can be reduced to other connectives (see False (logic) § False,
negation and contradiction for more). Neither conjunction, disjunction, nor material
conditional has an equivalent form constructed from the other four logical connectives.

Natural language[edit]

The standard logical connectives of classical logic have rough equivalents in the grammars of
natural languages. In English, as in many languages, such expressions are typically
grammatical conjunctions. However, they can also take the form of complementizers,
verb suffixes, and particles. The denotations of natural language connectives is a major
topic of research in formal semantics, a field that studies the logical structure of natural
languages.

The meanings of natural language connectives are not precisely identical to their nearest
equivalents in classical logic. In particular, disjunction can receive an exclusive
interpretation in many languages. Some researchers have taken this fact as evidence
that natural language semantics is nonclassical. However, others maintain classical
semantics by positing pragmatic accounts of exclusivity which create the illusion of
nonclassicality. In such accounts, exclusivity is typically treated as a scalar implicature.
Related puzzles involving disjunction include free choice inferences, Hurford's
Constraint, and the contribution of disjunction in alternative questions.

Other apparent discrepancies between natural language and classical logic include the
paradoxes of material implication, donkey anaphora and the problem of counterfactual
conditionals. These phenomena have been taken as motivation for identifying the
denotations of natural language conditionals with logical operators including the strict
conditional, the variably strict conditional, as well as various dynamic operators.
The following table shows the standard classically definable approximations for the
English connectives.

English word Connective Symbol Logical gate

not negation ¬ NOT

and conjunction ∧ AND

or disjunction ∨ OR

if...then material implication → IMPLY

...if converse implication ←

either...or exclusive disjunction ⊕ XOR

if and only if biconditional ↔ XNOR

not both alternative denial ↑ NAND

neither...nor joint denial ↓ NOR

but not material ↛ NIMPLY

nonimplication

Properties[edit]

Some logical connectives possess properties that may be expressed in the theorems containing
the connective. Some of those properties that a logical connective may have are:

Associativity

Within an expression containing two or more of the same associative connectives in

a row, the order of the operations does not matter as long as the sequence of the
operands is not changed.

Commutativity

The operands of the connective may be swapped, preserving logical equivalence to

the original expression.

Distributivity
 A connective denoted by · distributes over another connective denoted by +, if a · (b
+ c) = (a · b) + (a · c) for all operands a, b, c.

Idempotence

Whenever the operands of the operation are the same, the compound is logically
equivalent to the operand.

Absorption

A pair of connectives ∧, ∨ satisfies the absorption law if

𝑎∧(𝑎∨𝑏)=𝑎

for all operands a, b.

Monotonicity

If f(a1, ..., an) ≤ f(b1, ..., bn) for all a1, ..., an, b1, ..., bn ∈ {0,1} such that a1 ≤ b1, a2 ≤ b2, ...,
an ≤ bn. E.g., ∨, ∧, ⊤, ⊥.

Affinity

Each variable always makes a difference in the truth-value of the operation or it never makes a
difference. E.g., ¬, ↔,

, ⊤, ⊥.

Duality

To read the truth-value assignments for the operation from top to bottom on its truth
table is the same as taking the complement of reading the table of the same or
another connective from bottom to top. Without resorting to truth tables it may be
formulated as g̃(¬a1, ..., ¬an) = ¬g(a1, ..., an). E.g., ¬.

Truth-preserving

The compound all those arguments are tautologies is a tautology itself. E.g., ∨, ∧, ⊤, →, ↔, ⊂
(see validity).

Falsehood-preserving

The compound all those argument are contradictions is a contradiction itself. E.g., ∨, ∧,
 ↮

, ⊥, ⊄, ⊅ (see validity).

Involutivity (for unary connectives)

f(f(a)) = a. E.g. negation in classical logic.

For classical and intuitionistic logic, the "=" symbol means that corresponding implications
"...→..." and "...←..." for logical compounds can be both proved as theorems, and the "≤" symbol
means that "...→..." for logical compounds is a consequence of corresponding "...→..." connectives
for propositional variables. Some many-valued logics may have incompatible definitions of
equivalence and order (entailment).

Both conjunction and disjunction are associative, commutative and idempotent in

classical logic, most varieties of many-valued logic and intuitionistic logic. The same is
true about distributivity of conjunction over disjunction and disjunction over
conjunction, as well as for the absorption law.

In classical logic and some varieties of many-valued logic, conjunction and disjunction
are dual, and negation is self-dual, the latter is also self-dual in intuitionistic logic.

This section needs expansion.

You can help by adding to it.
(March 2012)

Order of precedence[edit]

As a way of reducing the number of necessary parentheses, one may introduce precedence
rules: ¬ has higher precedence than ∧, ∧ higher than ∨, and ∨ higher than →. So for example,

𝑃∨𝑄∧¬𝑅→𝑆

is short for

(𝑃∨(𝑄∧(¬𝑅)))→𝑆

[19][20]
Here is a table that shows a commonly used precedence of logical operators.
Operator Precedence

¬ 1

∧ 2

∨ 3

→ 4

↔ 5

However, not all compilers use the same order; for instance, an ordering in which
[21]
disjunction is lower precedence than implication or bi-implication has also been used.
Sometimes precedence between conjunction and disjunction is unspecified requiring to
provide it explicitly in given formula with parentheses. The order of precedence
determines which connective is the "main connective" when interpreting a non-atomic
formula.

Computer science
Logical connective
39 languages
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Logical operators)

For other logical symbols, see List of logic symbols.

Logical connectives

AND 𝐴∧𝐵
,
𝐴⋅𝐵
,
𝐴𝐵
,
𝐴&𝐵
,
𝐴&&𝐵

equivalent 𝐴≡𝐵
,
𝐴⇔𝐵
,
𝐴⇋𝐵

implies 𝐴⇒𝐵
,
𝐴⊃𝐵
,
𝐴→𝐵

NAND 𝐴∧¯𝐵
,
 𝐴↑𝐵
,
𝐴∣𝐵
,
𝐴⋅𝐵¯

nonequivalen 𝐴≢𝐵
t ,
𝐴⇎𝐵
,
𝐴↮𝐵

NOR 𝐴∨¯𝐵
,
𝐴↓𝐵
,
𝐴+𝐵¯

NOT ¬𝐴
,
−𝐴
,
𝐴¯
,
∼𝐴

OR 𝐴∨𝐵
,
𝐴+𝐵
,
𝐴∣𝐵
,
𝐴∥𝐵

XNOR 𝐴 XNOR 𝐵

XOR 𝐴∨_𝐵
,
𝐴⊕𝐵

converse 𝐴⇐𝐵
,
𝐴⊂𝐵
,
 𝐴←𝐵

Related concepts

● Propositional calculus
● Predicate logic
● Boolean algebra
● Truth table
● Truth function
● Boolean function
● Functional completeness

Applications

● Digital logic
● Programming languages
● Mathematical logic
● Philosophy of logic

Category

● V
● T
● E
 Hasse diagram of logical connectives.

In logic, a logical connective (also called a logical operator, sentential connective,

or sentential operator) is a logical constant. Connectives can be used to connect
logical formulas. For instance in the syntax of propositional logic, the binary
connective

can be used to join the two atomic formulas

and

, rendering the complex formula

𝑃∨𝑄

Common connectives include negation, disjunction, conjunction, implication, and

equivalence. In standard systems of classical logic, these connectives are
interpreted as truth functions, though they receive a variety of alternative
interpretations in nonclassical logics. Their classical interpretations are similar to
the meanings of natural language expressions such as English "not", "or", "and",
and "if", but not identical. Discrepancies between natural language connectives
and those of classical logic have motivated nonclassical approaches to natural
language meaning as well as approaches which pair a classical compositional
semantics with a robust pragmatics.

A logical connective is similar to, but not equivalent to, a syntax commonly used
in programming languages called a conditional operator.[1][better source needed]

Overview[edit]

In formal languages, truth functions are represented by unambiguous symbols.

This allows logical statements to not be understood in an ambiguous way. These
symbols are called logical connectives, logical operators, propositional
operators, or, in classical logic, truth-functional connectives. For the rules which
allow new well-formed formulas to be constructed by joining other well-formed
formulas using truth-functional connectives, see well-formed formula.

Logical connectives can be used to link zero or more statements, so one can
speak about n-ary logical connectives. The boolean constants True and False can
be thought of as zero-ary operators. Negation is a 1-ary connective, and so on.

Symbol, name Truth Ve

nn
table
dia
gra
m

Zeroary connectives (constants)

⊤ Truth/tautology 1

⊥ Falsity/ 0
contradiction

Unary connectives

� 0 1

Proposition 0 1

¬ Negation 1 0

Binary connectives

� 0 1

�
 =

� 0 1 0 1

Proposition 0 0 1 1

Proposition 0 1 0 1

∧ Conjunction 0 0 0 1

↑ Alternative 1 1 1 0
denial

∨ Disjunction 0 1 1 1
 ↓ Joint denial 1 0 0 0

→ Material 1 1 0 1
conditional

↮ Exclusive or 0 1 1 0

↔ Biconditional 1 0 0 1

← Converse 1 0 1 1
implication

More information

List of common logical connectives[edit]

[2]
Commonly used logical connectives include the following ones.

● Negation (not):
● ¬
● ,
● ∼
● ,
● 𝑁
● (prefix) in which
● ¬
● is the most modern and widely used, and
● ∼
● is used by many people too;
● Conjunction (and):
● ∧
● ,
● &
● ,
● 𝐾
● (prefix) in which
● ∧
● is the most modern and widely used;
● Disjunction (or):
● ∨
● ,
● 𝐴
● (prefix) in which
● ∨
● is the most modern and widely used;
● Implication (if...then):
● →
● ,
● ⊃
● ,
● ⇒
● ,
● 𝐶
● (prefix) in which
● →
● is the most modern and widely used, and
● ⊃
● is used by many people too;
● Equivalence (if and only if):
● ↔
● ,
● ⊂⊃
● ,
● ⇔
● ,
● ≡
● ,
● 𝐸
● (prefix) in which
● ↔
● is the most modern and widely used, and
● ⊂⊃
● may be also a good choice compared to
● ⊃
 ● denoting implication just like
● ↔
● to
● →
● .

For example, the meaning of the statements it is raining (denoted by

) and I am indoors (denoted by

) is transformed, when the two are combined with logical connectives:

● It is not raining (
● ¬𝑝
● );
● It is raining and I am indoors (
● 𝑝∧𝑞
● );
● It is raining or I am indoors (
● 𝑝∨𝑞
● );
● If it is raining, then I am indoors (
● 𝑝→𝑞
● );
● If I am indoors, then it is raining (
● 𝑞→𝑝
● );
● I am indoors if and only if it is raining (
● 𝑝↔𝑞
● ).

It is also common to consider the always true formula and the always false
formula to be connective (in which case they are nullary).

● True formula:
● ⊤
● ,
● 1
● ,
 ● 𝑉
● (prefix), or
● T
● ;
● False formula:
● ⊥
● ,
● 0
● ,
● 𝑂
● (prefix), or
● F
● .

This table summarizes the terminology:

Connective In English Noun for parts Verb phrase

Conjunction Both A and B conjunct A and B are

conjoined

Disjunction Either A or B, or both disjunct A and B are

disjoined

Negation It is not the case that negatum/negand A is negated

A

Conditional If A, then B antecedent, B is implied by A

consequent

Biconditional A if, and only if, B equivalents A and B are

equivalent

History of notations[edit]
● Negation: the symbol
● ¬
● appeared in Heyting in 1930[3][4] (compare to Frege's symbol ⫟ in his
Begriffsschrift[5]); the symbol
● ∼
● appeared in Russell in 1908;[6] an alternative notation is to add a
horizontal line on top of the formula, as in
● 𝑝¯
● ; another alternative notation is to use a prime symbol as in
● 𝑝′
● .
● Conjunction: the symbol
● ∧
● appeared in Heyting in 1930[3] (compare to Peano's use of the set-
theoretic notation of intersection
● ∩
[7]
● ); the symbol
● &
● appeared at least in Schönfinkel in 1924;[8] the symbol
● ⋅
● comes from Boole's interpretation of logic as an elementary algebra.
● Disjunction: the symbol
● ∨
● appeared in Russell in 1908[6] (compare to Peano's use of the set-
theoretic notation of union
● ∪
● ); the symbol
● +
● is also used, in spite of the ambiguity coming from the fact that the
● +
● of ordinary elementary algebra is an exclusive or when interpreted
logically in a two-element ring; punctually in the history a
● +
● together with a dot in the lower right corner has been used by Peirce.
[9]

● Implication: the symbol

● →
● appeared in Hilbert in 1918;[10]: 76
● ⊃
● was used by Russell in 1908[6] (compare to Peano's Ɔ the inverted C);
● ⇒
● appeared in Bourbaki in 1954.[11]
● Equivalence: the symbol
 ● ≡
● in Frege in 1879;[12]
● ↔
● in Becker in 1933 (not the first time and for this see the following); [13]
● ⇔
● appeared in Bourbaki in 1954;[14] other symbols appeared punctually
in the history, such as
● ⊃⊂
● in Gentzen,[15]
● ∼
● in Schönfinkel[8] or
● ⊂⊃
● in Chazal, [16]
● True: the symbol
● 1
● comes from Boole's interpretation of logic as an elementary algebra
over the two-element Boolean algebra; other notations include
● V
● (abbreviation for the Latin word "verum") to be found in Peano in
1889.
● False: the symbol
● 0
● comes also from Boole's interpretation of logic as a ring; other
notations include
● Λ
● (rotated
● V
● ) to be found in Peano in 1889.

Some authors used letters for connectives:

u.

for conjunction (German's "und" for "and") and

o.

for disjunction (German's "oder" for "or") in early works by Hilbert (1904); [17]

𝑁𝑝

for negation,
𝐾𝑝𝑞

for conjunction,

𝐷𝑝𝑞

for alternative denial,

𝐴𝑝𝑞

for disjunction,

𝐶𝑝𝑞

for implication,

𝐸𝑝𝑞

for biconditional in Łukasiewicz in 1929.

Redundancy[edit]

Such a logical connective as converse implication " actually the same as material
conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication
is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain
essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial
example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with
swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In
some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as
material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse
implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic),
certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A less
trivial example of a redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional
with swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant.
In some logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different
compound statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a
redundancy is the c actually the same as material conditional with swapped
arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some
logical calculi (notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound
statements are logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the
c actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus, the
symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi (notably, in
classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically
equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the c

←fdfdfdfdfdfdfdgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
ggggggggggggggggggggggggg

" is actually the same as material conditional with swapped arguments; thus,
the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi
(notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are
logically equivalent. A less trivial example of a redundancy is the classical
equivalence between

¬𝑝∨𝑞

and

𝑝→𝑞

. Therefore, a classical-based logical system does not need the conditional

operator "

" if "

" (not) and "

" (or) are already in use, or may use the "

" only as a syntactic sugar for a compound having one negation and one
disjunction.

There are sixteen Boolean functions associating the input truth values

and

with four-digit binary outputs.[18] These correspond to possible choices of

binary logical connectives for classical logic. Different implementations of
classical logic can choose different functionally complete subsets of
connectives.

One approach is to choose a minimal set, and define other connectives by some
logical form, as in the example with the material conditional above. The following
are the minimal functionally complete sets of operators in classical logic whose
arities do not exceed 2:

One element

{↑}

{↓}

Two elements

{∨,¬}

{∧,¬}

{→,¬}

{←,¬}

{→,⊥}

{←,⊥}

,
{→,↮}

{←,↮}

{→,↛}

{→,↚}

{←,↛}

{←,↚}

{↛,¬}

{↚,¬}

{↛,⊤}

{↚,⊤}

{↛,↔}
 ,

{↚,↔}

Three elements

{∨,↔,⊥}

{∨,↔,↮}

{∨,↮,⊤}

{∧,↔,⊥}

{∧,↔,↮}

{∧,↮,⊤}

Another approach is to use with equal rights connectives of a certain convenient

and functionally complete, but not minimal set. This approach requires more
propositional axioms, and each equivalence between logical forms must be either
an axiom or provable as a theorem.

The situation, however, is more complicated in intuitionistic logic. Of its five

connectives, {∧, ∨, →, ¬, ⊥}, only negation "¬" can be reduced to other connectives (see
False (logic) § False, negation and contradiction for more). Neither conjunction,
disjunction, nor material conditional has an equivalent form constructed from the
other four logical connectives.
Natural language[edit]

The standard logical connectives of classical logic have rough equivalents in the grammars of
natural languages. In English, as in many languages, such expressions are typically
grammatical conjunctions. However, they can also take the form of
complementizers, verb suffixes, and particles. The denotations of natural
language connectives is a major topic of research in formal semantics, a field that
studies the logical structure of natural languages.

The meanings of natural language connectives are not precisely identical to their
nearest equivalents in classical logic. In particular, disjunction can receive an
exclusive interpretation in many languages. Some researchers have taken this
fact as evidence that natural language semantics is nonclassical. However,
others maintain classical semantics by positing pragmatic accounts of
exclusivity which create the illusion of nonclassicality. In such accounts,
exclusivity is typically treated as a scalar implicature. Related puzzles involving
disjunction include free choice inferences, Hurford's Constraint, and the
contribution of disjunction in alternative questions.

Other apparent discrepancies between natural language and classical logic

include the paradoxes of material implication, donkey anaphora and the problem
of counterfactual conditionals. These phenomena have been taken as motivation
for identifying the denotations of natural language conditionals with logical
operators including the strict conditional, the variably strict conditional, as well
as various dynamic operators.

The following table shows the standard classically definable approximations for
the English connectives.

English word Connective Symbol Logical gate

not negation ¬ NOT

and conjunction ∧ AND

or disjunction ∨ OR

if...then material implication → IMPLY

...if converse implication ←

either...or exclusive disjunction ⊕ XOR

if and only if biconditional ↔ XNOR

not both alternative denial ↑ NAND

neither...nor joint denial ↓ NOR

but not material ↛ NIMPLY
nonimplication

Properties[edit]

Some logical connectives possess properties that may be expressed in the theorems containing
the connective. Some of those properties that a logical connective may have are:

Associativity

Within an expression containing two or more of the same associative

connectives in a row, the order of the operations does not matter as long as
the sequence of the operands is not changed.

Commutativity

The operands of the connective may be swapped, preserving logical

equivalence to the original expression.

Distributivity

A connective denoted by · distributes over another connective denoted by +, if

a · (b + c) = (a · b) + (a · c) for all operands a, b, c.

Idempotence

Whenever the operands of the operation are the same, the compound is
logically equivalent to the operand.

Absorption

A pair of connectives ∧, ∨ satisfies the absorption law if

𝑎∧(𝑎∨𝑏)=𝑎

for all operands a, b.

Monotonicity

If f(a1, ..., an) ≤ f(b1, ..., bn) for all a1, ..., an, b1, ..., bn ∈ {0,1} such that a1 ≤ b1, a2 ≤
b2, ..., an ≤ bn. E.g., ∨, ∧, ⊤, ⊥.

Affinity

Each variable always makes a difference in the truth-value of the operation or it never
makes a difference. E.g., ¬, ↔,

, ⊤, ⊥.

Duality

To read the truth-value assignments for the operation from top to bottom on
its truth table is the same as taking the complement of reading the table of the
same or another connective from bottom to top. Without resorting to truth
tables it may be formulated as g̃(¬a1, ..., ¬an) = ¬g(a1, ..., an). E.g., ¬.

Truth-preserving

The compound all those arguments are tautologies is a tautology itself. E.g., ∨, ∧, ⊤,
→, ↔, ⊂ (see validity).

Falsehood-preserving

The compound all those argument are contradictions is a contradiction itself.

E.g., ∨, ∧,

, ⊥, ⊄, ⊅ (see validity).

Involutivity (for unary connectives)

f(f(a)) = a. E.g. negation in classical logic.

For classical and intuitionistic logic, the "=" symbol means that corresponding implications
"...→..." and "...←..." for logical compounds can be both proved as theorems, and the "≤"
symbol means that "...→..." for logical compounds is a consequence of corresponding
"...→..." connectives for propositional variables. Some many-valued logics may have
incompatible definitions of equivalence and order (entailment).
Both conjunction and disjunction are associative, commutative and idempotent in
classical logic, most varieties of many-valued logic and intuitionistic logic. The
same is true about distributivity of conjunction over disjunction and disjunction
over conjunction, as well as for the absorption law.

In classical logic and some varieties of many-valued logic, conjunction and

disjunction are dual, and negation is self-dual, the latter is also self-dual in
intuitionistic logic.

This section needs expansion.

You can help by adding to it.
(March 2012)

Order of precedence[edit]

As a way of reducing the number of necessary parentheses, one may introduce precedence
rules: ¬ has higher precedence than ∧, ∧ higher than ∨, and ∨ higher than →. So for
example,

𝑃∨𝑄∧¬𝑅→𝑆

is short for

(𝑃∨(𝑄∧(¬𝑅)))→𝑆

Here is a table that shows a commonly used precedence of logical operators. [19]
[20]

Operator Precedence

¬ 1
 ∧ 2

∨ 3

→ 4

↔ 5

However, not all compilers use the same order; for instance, an ordering in which
disjunction is lower precedence than implication or bi-implication has also been
used.[21] Sometimes precedence between conjunction and disjunction is
unspecified requiring to provide it explicitly in given formula with parentheses.
The order of precedence determines which connective is the "main connective"
when interpreting a non-atomic formula.

Computer science