Post #4274070
2026-07-23 18:15 UTC
@rzeta0@mathstodon.xyz The second is false because there is no x such that 3<x<2, since 3 is not less than 2, so, a fortiori, there is no x where 6<2x<4 and 3<x<2, i.e., it's not the case that 6<2x<4 for some x where 3<x<2.
Replies (1)
-
@rzeta0@mathstodon.xyz 2026-07-23 18:51
@consequently@hcommons.social Why doesn't this explanation of falsehood apply to the first statement which also has a false antecedent?