Consider the following example:
What is the negation of this statement? $$\forall x{\in}\mathbb{R}\;\exists y{\in}\mathbb{R}\quad x+y\geq 0.\tag P$$
I know that the standard answer is $$\exists x{\in}\mathbb{R}\;\forall y{\in}\mathbb{R}\quad x+y<0.\tag{¬P}$$
But since we know that the first statement $P$ is true in mathematics, is it correct to say that any statement that is false is a negation of $P\,?$ For example, is $Q$ also a negation of $P\,?$ $$1<0\tag Q$$ Why or why not?
Is any contradiction a negation of a tautology?
For example, can I say that $$P \wedge \neg P$$ is a negation of $$Q\vee \neg Q\,?$$
-
In logics where the Principle of bivalence holds, like Classical Logic, the negation of a TRUE statement is FALSE, and vice versa. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Aug 24 '22 at 14:24
-
And yes, the negation od statement P above is correctly written. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Aug 24 '22 at 14:26
-
But in general we do not say that a false statement is the negation of a true statement whatever... The negation of $P ∧ ¬P$ is $\lnot (P ∧ ¬P)$ which is equivalent to $¬P \lor P$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Aug 24 '22 at 14:27
-
1Not any false statement is the negation of any true statement. For example the false statement "All natural numbers are odd" is not the negation of the true statement "All natural numbers are non-negative" – Crostul Aug 24 '22 at 14:28
-
@Crostul I think the negation of the true statement "All natural numbers are non-negative", "There is a natural numbers which is negative", is logically equivalent to "All natural numbers are odd". (They are both false statements.) – user 1234 Aug 24 '22 at 14:39
-
In some (but not all) Models of logic, all true statements are equivalent to each other & all false statements are equivalent to each other. In such Models, false statements are equivalent to negations of true statements & vice versa. Here , "not (true) == false" & "not (false) == true". – Prem Aug 24 '22 at 14:43
2 Answers
In classical logic, to negate a formula (including an open formula that has no definite truth value) means to logically flip its truth value.
Therefore, these statements are equivalent:
- $P$ and $Q$ are negations of each other;
- regardless of interpretation, $P$ and $Q$ have opposite truth values;
- $P↔Q$ is unsatisfiable;
(A more pedantic definition of ‘negation’ than #1 considers $(¬A∨¬B)$ to be merely logically equivalent to the negation $¬(A∧B)$ of $(A∧B);$ in this case, change “$P$ and $Q$” in bullet 2 to “the truth-functional form of $P$ and $Q$”, and change “unsatisfiable” to “a contradiction”.)
On the other hand, these statements are equivalent:
- $P$ and $Q$ are logically equivalent;
- regardless of interpretation, $P$ and $Q$ have the same truth value;
- $P↔Q$ is valid, i.e., $P\equiv Q;$
-
If statement $P$ is true in mathematics, then is any false statement in mathematics a negation of $P\,?$ For example, here, is $Q$ a negation of $P$? $$\forall x{\in}\mathbb{R}\;\exists y{\in}\mathbb{R}\quad x+y\geq 0.\tag P$$ $$1<0\tag Q$$
Two formulae with opposite truth values (in a given interpretation) do not necessarily negate each other.
For example, $(\forall x\;x^2\le0)$ and $(x=x)$ have opposite truth values in the universe $\mathbb R,$ but the same truth value in the universe of all imaginary numbers (that is, in this interpretation, the two formula are equivalent); so, they aren't mutual negations.
And these two propositions have opposite truth values in some, but not all, interpretations: \begin{array}{cc|c@{}ccc@{}c} P&Q&&P&\rightarrow&Q&\\\hline 1&1&&1&\mathbf{1}&1&\\ 1&0&&1&\mathbf{0}&0&\\ 0&1&&0&\mathbf{1}&1&\\ 0&0&&0&\mathbf{1}&0& \end{array} \begin{array}{cc|c@{}ccc@{}cc@{}c@{}c} P&Q&&P&\rightarrow&&\lnot&Q&\\\hline 1&1&&1&\mathbf{0}&&0&1&&\\ 1&0&&1&\mathbf{1}&&1&0&&\\ 0&1&&0&\mathbf{1}&&0&1&&\\ 0&0&&0&\mathbf{1}&&1&0&& \end{array}
In your example, in an interpretation in which the binary operation
+
is definedx+y := -3-|xy|
, where subtraction & multiplication retain their standard meanings, sentences $P$ and $Q$ are equivalent to each other, even though in mathematics they have opposite truth values. Notice that negation preserves logical equivalence.
By the definition in #1:
- Negating a valid formula gives an unsatisfiable formula, and vice versa.
- Negating an invalid formula gives a satisfiable formula, and vice versa.
Examples:
Observe that both $\big(\forall x\,P(x)\big)$ and its negation $\big(\exists x\,¬P(x)\big)$ are satisfiable and invalid: $(\forall x\;x^2\ge0)$ is true in the universe $\mathbb R$ but false in the universe of all imaginary numbers, while its negation $(\exists x\;x^2<0)$ is false in the universe $\mathbb R$ but true in the universe of all imaginary numbers.
$(x=x)$ is valid and its negation $(x\ne x)$ is (not merely invalid but) unsatisfiable.
-
Is any contradiction a negation of a tautology?
Yes, by the definition in #1.

- 38,879
- 14
- 81
- 179
Any statement that is false is negation of some true stament?
Any contradiction is a negation of some tautology?
As long as the laws $\sim T\equiv F$ and $\sim F\equiv T$ are valid in the universe of discourse, the answers to both of your questions is YES.

- 7,946