I've never understood why ⊃, rather than ⊂, is used for implication. It has the disturbing consequence for set theory that "∀x, x ∈ A ⊃ x ∈ B" is the same statement as "A ⊆ B". I know this goes back at least to Russell and Whitehead, and probably before. Does anyone know the rationale?
Taking a wild guess, but I would figure it's about distinguishing statements about truth values and statements about sets. If you think of it as a function, takes in two booleans and returns a booleen. Likewise ⊂ takes a thing and a set and returns a booleen. I've never really been a fan of ⊃, and always personally preferred an arrow.
6 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] threadAmong the symbols I've found used:
Conjunction: ∧ ⨉ &
Disjunction: | +
Negation: ¬ ! and "overlining" the terms
Implication: => ⇒ (most common in my experience)
Equivalence: <=> ⇔
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/23231/is-ther...
We used:
∧ conjunction
∨ disjunction
⇒ implication
¬ negation
⇔ equivalence (bi-implication)
⊂, ⊃ &c. were for sets.