There's a logic description of implies on StackExchange that makes sense to me. It is in the form of P⇒Q where
"..P=It is raining, and Q=There are clouds in the sky. Note that P is sufficient to conclude Q, and Q is necessary for P. There is no rain without clouds, and if there are no clouds then there cannot be any rain."
So in the truth table of this is
P | Q | P⇒Q |
T | T | T | If it is raining and there must be clouds is true.
T | F | F | If it is raining and there are no clouds is false. Clouds are necessary for rain.
F | T | T | If it is not raining and there are clouds is true. Clouds can be there without rain.
F | F | T | If it is not raining and there are no clouds it is true. There can be no clouds and no rain.
Does that work as a logic description of implication?http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/61779/problem-in-understanding-p-implies-q#implies