Intereting Posts

Very quick question: function extends to 1/z on the boundary of unit disc
Is every dense subspace of a separable space separable?
Sequence of partial sums of e in Q is a Cauchy sequence.
Proving that $C$ is a subset of $f^{-1}$
What is the meaning of $1/(D+a)$, where $D$ is the derivative operator?
$\lim_{x \to 0} \dfrac{f(x)-g(x)}{g^{-1}(x)-f^{-1}(x)} = 1$ for any $f,g \in C^1$ that are tangent to $\text{id}$ at $0$ with some simple condition
Galois group over $p$-adic numbers
Example of set which contains itself
Integrability of $1/(1+|x|)^{p(x)}$
{line bundles} $\neq$ {divisor line bundles}
Resizing a rectangle to always fit into its unrotated space
What are Quantum Groups?
Show that a convex compact set in $R^2$ can be cut into 4 sets of equal area by 2 perpendicular lines
Given a real function $g$ satisfying certain conditions, can we construct a convex $h$ with $h \le g$?
Application of Riemann-Roch

Is it just for convenience that mathematicians define that false statements imply anything?

If yes, why it would be defined like this?

- axioms of equality
- Where do we need the axiom of choice in Riemannian geometry?
- How does (ZFC-Infinity+“There is no infinite set”) compare with PA?
- Why is there this strange contradiction between the language of logic and that of set theory?
- Does a nonlinear additive function on R imply a Hamel basis of R?
- Is the “domain of discourse” in axiomatic set theory also a “set”?

- How complicated is the set of tautologies?
- Are these two predicate statements equivalent or not?
- How do we know what natural numbers are?
- Does existential elimination affect whether you can do a universal introduction?
- Show that binary < “less than” relation is not definable on set of Natural Numbers with successor function
- Sum and product of ultrafilters
- What's the difference between a negation and a contrapositive?
- programming language with HALTS keyword
- What exactly is the difference between weak and strong induction?
- Help me put these enormous numbers in order: googol, googol-plex-bang, googol-stack and so on

Well, a big reason that we chose this convention is that we are sort of short on options:

- We could say that a false premise implies that the implication is true exactly when the conclusion is true, but that would be odd because then the premise doesn’t do anything.
- We could say that a false premise implies the implication is true exactly when the conclusion is false, but eww.
- We could say that a false premise implies the implication is always true, which is what most people who think about the alternatives do.
- We could say that a false premise implies the implication is always false, but if we do this then $p\to q$ has the same truth table as $p\wedge q$, which isn’t
*bad*but it seems like there is something more that we want out of an implication than a simple ‘and’ statement. - We could reject the law of the excluded middle so that the implication is neither true nor false. This turns out to be a valid option, but also eww. More practical reasons to dislike this is that it destroys double-negation $ (\sim\sim\! p$ is $p)$ and therefore contrapositive and contradiction proofs.

So you have to pick one. They’re a sorry lot, I admit, but we’re stuck with them, and one has proven to be more realistic and pragmatic than the others.

Quine asserts a similar idea in his “Methods of Logic”:

“An inconsistent schema implies every schema and is implied by inconsistent ones only.”

This follows naturally from the manner in which he defines implication. Specifically he says, “implication is validity of the conditional,” where validity was previously defined as being true under all interpetations.

With this definition of implication, a schema of the form ‘${\bot} \to p$’ is valid because it is true whether $p$ is interpreted true or false, therefore ‘$\bot$’ implies ‘$p$’.

It is not entirely clear from your question what you mean so I’m adding this answer too, just for the sake of completeness. I think you might be referring to the fact that in classical logic a contradiction implies any sentence. This is not the same as saying that a false statement implies anything. That is actually not true. If $P$ is false then $P\implies Q$ is a true statement but one can’t conclude that $Q$ is true.

If, however, $P$ is both true and false (i.e., is a contradiction) then since $P\implies Q$ is true one may now conclude by Modes Ponens that $Q$ is true, and thus a contradiction *proves* any statement. This is called the explosion principle.

There are several reasons to feel somewhat not at ease with this principle and there are ways to exclude this principle and retain a very useful logical system that is tolerant to contradictions, without rendering the entire system useless. Such logics are called paraconsistent. A nice expository article on paraconsistency can be found here: http://plus.maths.org/content/not-carrot

You got it backward: a proposition does not imply everything because it is false, but a proposition is false because it implies everything. We want a formal system to single out a strict subset of *valid* propositions. A proposition that implies every other proposition cannot be in this subset, as it would make every other formula valid too. Therefore, those propositions that imply everything, are false.

I found helpful this pithy explanation, herefrom:

Please do not confuse terse for simple.

That a false premise implies any conclusion is not a “suggestion”[.]

[I]t is a foundational law of formal logic that, sadly, most people do not know. It comes about because the validity of implication rests on the assurance that

$\color{red} { \text {the case of a given premise being true and the implied conclusion simultaneously being false } }$

, will not happen.

If the premise is always false, this [above case in red] can never happen[.] [S]o it does not matter what the conclusion is (true or false). Thus, a false premise implies any conclusion.

- Bounded partial derivatives imply continuity
- Formula for summation of integer division series
- Wilson's Theorem – Why only for primes?
- sum of all the numbers that can be formed using the digits 2,3,3,4,4,4..
- Does a process with continuous sample path always has continuous variance
- Symmetric Difference Identity
- Gradient vector of parametric curve
- Change of coordinate codomain from $$ to $$
- Given two holomorphic functions on a region find two other such that…
- Second Countable, First Countable, and Separable Spaces
- Definition of the $\sec$ function
- Question on showing a bijection between $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ and $$ when X is path connected.
- Given $N$, what is the next prime $p$ greater than $N$?
- A System of Matrix Equations (2 Riccati, 1 Lyapunov)
- Delta function integrated from zero