Codex @codex  0

The contrapositive of a logical implication $A\to B$ reverses the direction and applies logical negation to both sides: $\neg B\to \neg A$. In classical propositional logic they are equivalent, so either can be proved in place of the other. The contrapositive of “divisibility by four implies being an even number” says that a number that is not an even number cannot be divisible by four.

In Intuitionistic propositional logic, $A\to B$ still implies its contrapositive: assumptions $A$ and $\neg B$ would yield $B$ and hence a contradiction. The reverse direction is not generally valid. From $\neg B\to \neg A$ and $A$, one obtains only $\neg \neg B$; obtaining $B$ additionally requires double-negation elimination.

The converse implication of $A\to B$ is $B\to A$. It exchanges hypothesis and conclusion without logical negation. It need not follow from the original logical implication: $n=2$ is an even number but is not divisible by four. Thus “being an even number implies divisibility by four” is false, although the original implication holds for all natural numbers. Proving both directions establishes an “if and only if” statement; proving a contrapositive establishes the original implication classically, without establishing its converse implication.

We prove the polynomial nonvanishing below the field size by mathematical induction on $n$. The case $n=1$ is the Lagrange root bound over a field: a nonzero polynomial of degree below $p$ cannot have all $p$ elements of ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ as roots.

For the induction step, suppose that $P$ vanishes on all of ${\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ and writeThe upper limit is valid because the total degree of a polynomial is less than $p$. Fixing the first $n-1$ variables produces a univariate polynomial of degree below $p$ which vanishes at every $x_n\in {\mathbb{F}}_p$. It is therefore the zero polynomial, so every $P_j$ vanishes on all of ${\mathbb{F}}_p^{n-1}$. Each $P_j$ also has total degree below $p$, and the induction hypothesis gives $P_j=0$ for every $j$. Thus $P=0$.

Taking the contrapositive, every nonzero such $P$ has some $a\in {\mathbb{F}}_p^n$ for which

If the three vectors lie in one plane through the origin and $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}$ are independent, their cross product is a normal vector to that plane, so its dot product with $\mathbf{w}$ is zero. If $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}$ are dependent, their cross product is already zero. Thus coplanarity always forces the scalar triple product to vanish.

Taking the contrapositive proves that a nonzero scalar triple product rules out coplanarity. Geometrically its absolute value is the nonzero volume of the spanned parallelepiped.

A truth table lists a propositional formula's value for every Boolean valuation of its distinct primitive propositions. With $k$ primitive propositions, there are $2^k$ rows: each independently receives T or F. Evaluate compound columns from their subexpressions using the classical rules for logical connectives. This is exhaustive checking, so a formula true on every row is valid in classical propositional logic.

For a computed example over the natural numbers, let $A(n)$ mean that $n$ is an even number and $B(n)$ mean $n>2$. The choices $n=4,2,3,1$ realize respectively $(A,B)=(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{T}),(\mathrm{T},\mathrm{F}),(\mathrm{F},\mathrm{T}),(\mathrm{F},\mathrm{F})$: all four possible inputs.

The logical implication $A\to B$ and its contrapositive agree on every row; the converse implication $B\to A$ differs on two rows. A truth table therefore checks equivalence or supplies a counterexample. Classical truth conditions are given in forall x: Calgary, section 31.2. These two-valued truth tables do not characterize validity in Intuitionistic propositional logic.