An Article Review: Logical Equivalence: Symmetric and

Asymmetric Features

By:

Silva, Cristine Joy

Abstract

This article review focuses on symmetric and asymmetric features based

on its logical context, as well as the comparison between material equivalence
and biconditional event in both theoretical and experimental ways. In addition,
the difference in the context and the frame problem, Hempel's paradox and
lattice theory was also elaborated. Related studies were used in this review for
further discussion of the concepts.
1.0 Introduction

Two logical expressions are said to be equivalent if both exhibits the same
truth value in all cases. Sometimes this fact benefits in proving a mathematical
result by replacing one expression with another equivalent expression, without
altering the truth value of the original compound proposition. Classified based on
their truth values, there are three types of propositions namely tautology (all the
propositions are true), contradiction (all the propositions are false) and
contingency (the propositions are neither true nor false).

Formally, two propositions p and q are said to be logically equivalent if p if

and only if q shows tautology. (“Mathematics: Propositional Equivalences”, n.d.).
Using a truth table is one way of proving that two propositions are logically
equivalent to each other. The truth table must be identical for all combinations for
the given propositions to be equivalent. In this case, there is a better way to
prove that the two given propositions are logically equivalent which is to construct
a mathematical proof which uses established logical equivalences.

Logical equivalence is different from material equivalence, though they are

closely related. We can only say that p and q are logically equivalent if and only if
the statement of their material equivalence (p ⟺ q) is a tautology (Copi et. at.,
2014). In addition, the material equivalence of p and q (written as p if and only if
q) is another statement in the same language as p and q. This statement shows
the idea "p if and only if q". In particular, the truth value of p if and only if q can
change from one model to another.

On the other hand, a biconditional statement is defined to be true when

both parts show the same truth values. The biconditional operator is denoted by
a double-headed arrow. The biconditional p ⟺ q represents "p if and only if q,"
where p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion. This means that a biconditional
statement is closely related to material equivalence (“Biconditional Statement”,
2017).
 The authors of this article conducted an experiment in order to compare
two logical equivalences – material equivalence and biconditional event. In
relation to this, there is a study in support to the experiment conducted by the
authors. In the article entitled Origin of Cognitive Bias: Ad-hoc Logic and
Symmetry Bias, it states that an ad-hoc logic (based on a lattice which is a
topped intersection structure) implements a negotiation process between
representations and objects set in an ad-hoc logic can lead to symmetry bias
(Gunji and Sawa, 2008).

This article review would like to establish a closer perspective on the topic
discussed by the authors and to come up with its aim to discuss the logical
equivalence in its symmetric and asymmetric features. Particularly, the
researcher is expected to meet the following objectives:

1. state the concepts of material equivalence and biconditional event in

the article; and

2. examine the symmetric and asymmetric features of logical equivalence

based on the experiment conducted by the authors of the article.

The discussion about logical equivalence is too broad, that's why the
researcher sets limitations to narrow down the information needed for the
conduct. The article review mainly focuses on logical equivalence and its
symmetric and asymmetric features, as mentioned above. However, the study
does not only focus on the general proposition logic as it specifically involves the
material equivalence and biconditional event which are associated to logical
equivalence.

The need to study the logical equivalence and its symmetric and
asymmetric features will be beneficial for the students to enlighten the
understanding about the concepts involving logical equivalence. In addition, the
mathematicians will benefit for this review for them to become motivated in
conducting a study related to the topic. Lastly, this will be beneficial for the future
researchers because this will serve as reference in the future.
1.1 Preliminary Concepts

1.1.1 Material Equivalence (Sawa et. al., 2013)

Material equivalence has a truth table in which the truth values are
T (true) if A = T and B = T (abbreviated as TT), F (false) if A = T and B = F
(TF), F if A = F and B = T (FT), and T if A = F and B = F (FF). Therefore,
the truth table is symmetric on both diagonals from upper left to lower
right, and from upper right to lower left.

A B A⟺B
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
Table 1: The truth table for material equivalence A ⟺ B.

Material equivalence A ⟺ B is composed of two material

implications in opposite directions, that is, A ⇒ B and B ⇒ A. Ordinarily,
material implication A ⇒ B is the same as a logical representation of “if A
then B.”

However, there is a psychological controversy about an implication

“if A then B.” The point of controversy is the cases of FT and FF.

A B A⇒B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Table 2: The truth table for material implication A ⇒ B.

For example, let us consider a statement:

If a bird X is a crow, then X is black.

Let’s say A represents the statement “A bird X is a crow” which is

true, the reasoning seems to be doubtful. However, if it is false under the
assumption that “A bird X is not a crow”, it is hard to decide whether X is
black or not. Meanwhile, using material implication to represent “if A then
B”, the whole statement “If a bird X is a crow then X is black” is true if X is
not a crow.

1.1.2 Conditional Event (Sawa et. al., 2013)

Conditional event, represented by B | F A has a truth table with truth

values, T (true), F (false), and U (uncertain). The values are true if TT,
false if TF, uncertain if FT and if FF.

A B B |F A
T T T
T F F
F T U
F F U
Table 3: The truth table for conditional event B | F A.

Back to the statement mentioned a while ago, if a bird X is not a

crow, then the color of the bird is uncertain. Also, while representing “if A
then B” as a bet whether B will occur or not under the condition of A, “if A
then B” correlates with conditional event. If that’s the case, {TT}, {TF}, {FT,
FF} correspond to win, lose, and called off of a bet, respectively.

1.1.3 Biconditional Event (Sawa et. al., 2013)

Biconditional event, represented by B || F A, represents a fact that A

and B are equivalent and relates to the index of human causal estimation
called proportion of assumed-to-be rare Instances, in short pARIs.
Biconditional event B ||F A has a truth table which is symmetrical on
material equivalence from upper left to lower right. However, the value of
FF is uncertain in biconditional event compared to the value of FF which is
true in material equivalence, thus the truth table is asymmetric from upper
right to lower left.

A B B ||F A
T T T
T F F
 F T F
F F U
Table 4: The truth table for conditional event B || F A.

2.0 Methodology

To further explain the article chosen by the researcher with the approval of
the course instructor, the expository research was applied which aims to explain,
describe, and provide information related to the topic. The researcher gathered
supplemental materials such as articles, journals and researches to provide
answers in relation to the article. The internet, especially search engines like
Google was essential for the researcher for easy access of the discussion. In
these ways, the researcher came up with a systematic, well-explained and
informative article review which is beneficial for the readers for better
understanding of the concepts.

3.0 Results and Discussions

3.1 Frame Problem

Based on the experimental results conducted by the authors, the

researcher indicated the significance of biconditional event (B || F A) to material
equivalence A ⟺ B, as well as the significance of conditional event (B | F A) to
material implication A ⇒ B. This can consider that the asymmetry of biconditional
event on diagonal from upper right to lower left is linked with the frame problem.

The frame problem is the experiment of demonstrating the effects of

action in logic without having to represent large number of naturally obvious non-
effects (Shanahan, 2016). The value of FF is uncertain (U) instead of true (T),
hence it can be useful as a storage of new evidence. If material equivalence is
adopted, then the value of FF is still T.
Figure 1 shows the Venn diagrams of material equivalence (A) and biconditional
event (B).

In logical context, this proves that the logical values of a proposition and
its contraposition are the same. From this viewpoint, the fact that the value of FF
is U is effective and essential for better progress.

3.2 Hempel’s Paradox

Furthermore, Hempel’s paradox is closely related to frame problem.

Introduced by the German logician Carl Gustav Hempel in the 1940s, this
paradox branches from two principles for inductive reasoning. One of the
principles is the interchangeable logically-equivalent claims and another one is
the particular instances which confirm the corresponding universal
generalization. Hempel showed that these two principles conclude that claims of
the form "All As are Bs" can be confirmed by observing non-A, non-B objects
(Fetzer, 2016).

As discussed in Hempel’s paradox, the number of elements in TT is far

less than the number of FF, and the collection of FF is diverse. Therefore, this
fact is another representation of asymmetry of biconditional event.

3.3 Lattice Theory

 In addition, there is actually one more symmetric feature in relation to
biconditional event. Let’s look back to the statement mentioned above:

“If a bird X is a crow, then X is black”

Let C represents the statement “A bird X is a crow” and B represents the

statement “X is black”.

The representation by material implication of the statement C ⇒ B is

logically equivalent to CC ∨ B (CC means “not C” or “complement of C”). If C ⇒ B
is true, then C ⇒ B = ⊤ (top), therefore CC ∨ B = ⊤.

Thus, this is what the lattice theory came up. It is the study of sets of
objects better known as lattices. It is an outgrowth of the study of Boolean
algebras, and provides a framework for unifying the study of classes or ordered
sets in mathematics (Weisstein, 2018).

Figure 2 illustrates a symmetric feature between conditional event B | F C (A) and

C ∧ BC (B), if exists, becomes a counter example of “if C then B.” (C) If C ⇒ B =
CC ∨ B was applied as “if C then B”, CC ∨ B = ⊤. As a result, there is no symmetric
feature between “if C then B” and C ∧ BC if C ⇒ B is assumed as “if C then B.”

Therefore, if we apply conditional event B | F C which means “if C then B”,

the representation of “if C then B” exists in the lower position than ⊤ which is B |F
C ≤ ⊤. In contrast, if the counter example of “if C then B” which is represented by
C ∧ BC (BC means “not B” or “complement of B”) exists, it is in the upper position
than ⊥ (bottom). Meaning to say, C ∧ B C ≥ ⊥. To sum it up, assumption of
conditional event and the counter example of “if C then B” are in symmetric
relation in the lattice theoretical scheme which may lead to explanation of
conditional event.

4.0 Conclusions and Direction for Future Use

In accordance to the article reviewed by the researcher, it was concluded

that the concepts involving material equivalence and biconditional event was
clearly stated and discussed. In addition, the symmetric and asymmetric features
of logical equivalence was clearly examined also. Based on the examination on
the experiment conducted by the authors, it indicates that the descriptive priority
of biconditional event to material equivalence for logical context was represented
as biconditional.

The article review presents the researcher's point of view on the article
involving logical equivalence in its symmetric and asymmetric features. The
researcher recommended that the future researchers refer to other studies in
relation to the topic. However, this review is still helpful to gain information linked
to the discussion.

References

Biconditional statement. (2017). Retrieved from

https://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol9/biconditional. Date retrieved
December 3, 2018.

Copi, Irving M., et. al. (2014). Introduction to Logic, 14 th ed. Pearson New
International Edition, p.348.

Fetzer, James (2016). The Paradoxes of Hempelian Explanation. The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University .

Gunji, Yukio-Pegio and Sawa, Koji. (2008) Origin of Cognitive Bias: Ad-hoc Logic
and Symmetry Bias. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive
Science Society, Volume 15, Issue No. 3, p. 442-456.
Mathematics: propositional equivalences. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/mathematical-logic-propositional-
equivalences/amp/. Date retrieved: December 3, 2018.

Sawa, Koji et. al. (2013) Logical Equivalence: Symmetric and Asymmetric
Features, Symmetry: Culture and Science, Volume 24, Issue No. 1-4, p.
339-346.

Shanahan, Murray, (2016, March 21). "The Frame Problem", The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/frame-problem/. Date
retrieved: December 3, 2018.

Weisstein, Eric. (2018, November 9). "Lattice Theory.". from Math World – A
Wolfram Web Resource. Retrieved from
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LatticeTheory.html. Date retrieved:
December 3, 2018.