which biconditional is not a good definition

Guri Bee

2 min read

·

20-10-2024

1

0

Share

Why Some Biconditionals Fail as Definitions: A Deep Dive into Logic

In mathematics and logic, biconditionals (often symbolized by "↔" or "iff" for "if and only if") are powerful tools for expressing equivalence between statements. However, not all biconditionals make for good definitions. This article explores why some biconditionals fall short, highlighting common pitfalls and illustrating them with practical examples.

Understanding Biconditionals

A biconditional statement asserts that two statements are logically equivalent. For instance, the statement "A triangle is equilateral if and only if it has three equal sides" is a biconditional. It means:

• If a triangle is equilateral, then it has three equal sides. (This is the "if" part)
• If a triangle has three equal sides, then it is equilateral. (This is the "only if" part)

Why Biconditionals Can Make Poor Definitions

While biconditionals are essential for understanding relationships between concepts, they can be problematic when used to define terms. Here's why:

1. Circular Definitions: A biconditional definition is circular if one of the statements defines the term being defined. For example, consider this biconditional:

   "A number is even if and only if it is divisible by 2."

   The problem is that "divisible by 2" inherently refers to the concept of being even. This biconditional doesn't clarify the meaning of "even" – it simply rephrases it.

   Solution: A good definition must introduce a new concept or explain the term in terms of simpler, previously understood concepts.

2. Ambiguity and Lack of Clarity: Some biconditionals can be ambiguous or lack clarity. For instance:

   "A person is happy if and only if they are smiling."

   This statement is problematic because happiness can be expressed in ways other than smiling. Someone might be happy but not show it outwardly, or they might be smiling for reasons unrelated to happiness.

   Solution: A good definition should be unambiguous and precisely define the concept without relying on subjective or vague terms.

3. Circular Logic: A definition can suffer from circular logic if it involves a chain of biconditionals that ultimately lead back to the original term being defined. This creates a circular dependency and fails to provide a clear definition.

   Example:

   • "A polygon is regular if and only if all its sides are equal."
   • "A side of a polygon is equal if and only if it has the same length as another side."

   This chain of biconditionals doesn't truly define a regular polygon. Instead, it relies on the previously undefined term "equal," creating a circular definition.

   Solution: Avoid constructing definitions that rely on circular logic. Ensure each term is defined independently and clearly.

Practical Example

Consider the biconditional statement: "A square is a quadrilateral if and only if it has four right angles."

This statement is not a good definition because:

• It fails to capture the essence of a square. While it's true that squares have four right angles, it doesn't define them as the only quadrilaterals with this property. Rectangles also have four right angles.
• The statement is circular since the definition of "square" relies on the concept of "quadrilateral," which itself may not be well-defined.

A better definition for a square could be:

• A square is a quadrilateral with four equal sides and four right angles.

This definition is clearer and more comprehensive, defining a square in terms of its unique properties.

Conclusion

While biconditionals are valuable for expressing logical equivalences, they need careful handling when used to define terms. Avoid circularity, ambiguity, and circular logic to ensure your definitions are precise, clear, and effectively convey the meaning of the term.