↔⇔≡⟺

Logical symbols representingiff

In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, "**if and only if**" (shortened as "**iff**") is a biconditional logical connective between statements, where either both statements are true or both are false.

- Definition
- Usage
- Notation
- Proofs
- Origin of iff and pronunciation
- Usage in definitions
- Distinction from "if" and "only if"
- In terms of Euler diagrams
- More general usage
- See also
- References
- External links

The connective is biconditional (a statement of **material equivalence**),^{ [1] } and can be likened to the standard material conditional ("only if", equal to "if ... then") combined with its reverse ("if"); hence the name. The result is that the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other (i.e. either both statements are true, or both are false), though it is controversial whether the connective thus defined is properly rendered by the English "if and only if"—with its pre-existing meaning. For example, *P if and only if Q* means that *P* is true whenever *Q* is true, and the only case in which *P* is true is if *Q* is also true, whereas in the case of *P if Q*, there could be other scenarios where *P* is true and *Q* is false.

In writing, phrases commonly used as alternatives to P "if and only if" Q include: *Q is necessary and sufficient for P*, *for P it is necessary and sufficient that Q*, *P is equivalent (or materially equivalent) to Q* (compare with material implication), *P precisely if Q*, *P precisely (or exactly) when Q*, *P exactly in case Q*, and *P just in case Q*.^{ [2] } Some authors regard "iff" as unsuitable in formal writing;^{ [3] } others consider it a "borderline case" and tolerate its use.^{ [4] }

In logical formulae, logical symbols, such as and ,^{ [5] } are used instead of these phrases; see § Notation below.

The truth table of *P**Q* is as follows:^{ [6] }^{ [7] }

P | Q | PQ | PQ | P Q |
---|---|---|---|---|

T | T | T | T | T |

T | F | F | T | F |

F | T | T | F | F |

F | F | T | T | T |

The corresponding logical symbols are "↔", "",^{ [5] } and "≡",^{ [9] } and sometimes "iff". These are usually treated as equivalent. However, some texts of mathematical logic (particularly those on first-order logic, rather than propositional logic) make a distinction between these, in which the first, ↔, is used as a symbol in logic formulas, while ⇔ is used in reasoning about those logic formulas (e.g., in metalogic). In Łukasiewicz's Polish notation, it is the prefix symbol 'E'.^{ [10] }

Another term for the logical connective, i.e., the symbol in logic formulas, is exclusive nor.

In TeX, "if and only if" is shown as a long double arrow: via command \iff.^{ [11] }

In most logical systems, one proves a statement of the form "P iff Q" by proving either "if P, then Q" and "if Q, then P", or "if P, then Q" and "if not-P, then not-Q". Proving these pair of statements sometimes leads to a more natural proof, since there are not obvious conditions in which one would infer a biconditional directly. An alternative is to prove the disjunction "(P and Q) or (not-P and not-Q)", which itself can be inferred directly from either of its disjuncts—that is, because "iff" is truth-functional, "P iff Q" follows if P and Q have been shown to be both true, or both false.

Usage of the abbreviation "iff" first appeared in print in John L. Kelley's 1955 book *General Topology*.^{ [12] } Its invention is often credited to Paul Halmos, who wrote "I invented 'iff,' for 'if and only if'—but I could never believe I was really its first inventor."^{ [13] }

It is somewhat unclear how "iff" was meant to be pronounced. In current practice, the single 'word' "iff" is almost always read as the four words "if and only if". However, in the preface of *General Topology*, Kelley suggests that it should be read differently: "In some cases where mathematical content requires 'if and only if' and euphony demands something less I use Halmos' 'iff'". The authors of one discrete mathematics textbook suggest:^{ [14] } "Should you need to pronounce iff, really hang on to the 'ff' so that people hear the difference from 'if'", implying that "iff" could be pronounced as [ɪfː].

Technically, definitions are "if and only if" statements; some texts — such as Kelley's *General Topology* — follow the strict demands of logic, and use "if and only if" or *iff* in definitions of new terms.^{ [15] } However, this logically correct usage of "if and only if" relatively uncommon and overlooks the linguistic fact that the "if" of a definition is interpreted as meaning "if and only if". The majority of textbooks, research papers and articles (including English Wikipedia articles) follow the linguistic convention to interpret "if" as "if and only if" whenever a mathematical definition is involved (as in "a topological space is compact if every open cover has a finite subcover").^{ [16] }

*"Madison will eat the fruit*(equivalent to__if__it is an apple."*"*or__Only if__Madison will eat the fruit, can it be an apple"*"Madison will eat the fruit*←*the fruit is an apple"*)- This states that Madison will eat fruits that are apples. It does not, however, exclude the possibility that Madison might also eat bananas or other types of fruit. All that is known for certain is that she will eat any and all apples that she happens upon. That the fruit is an apple is a
*sufficient*condition for Madison to eat the fruit.

- This states that Madison will eat fruits that are apples. It does not, however, exclude the possibility that Madison might also eat bananas or other types of fruit. All that is known for certain is that she will eat any and all apples that she happens upon. That the fruit is an apple is a
*"Madison will eat the fruit*(equivalent to__only if__it is an apple."*"*or__If__Madison will eat the fruit, then it is an apple"*"Madison will eat the fruit*→*the fruit is an apple"*)- This states that the only fruit Madison will eat is an apple. It does not, however, exclude the possibility that Madison will refuse an apple if it is made available, in contrast with (1), which requires Madison to eat any available apple. In this case, that a given fruit is an apple is a
*necessary*condition for Madison to be eating it. It is not a sufficient condition since Madison might not eat all the apples she is given.

- This states that the only fruit Madison will eat is an apple. It does not, however, exclude the possibility that Madison will refuse an apple if it is made available, in contrast with (1), which requires Madison to eat any available apple. In this case, that a given fruit is an apple is a
*"Madison will eat the fruit*(equivalent to__if and only if__it is an apple."*"Madison will eat the fruit*↔*the fruit is an apple"*)- This statement makes it clear that Madison will eat all and only those fruits that are apples. She will not leave any apple uneaten, and she will not eat any other type of fruit. That a given fruit is an apple is both a
*necessary*and a*sufficient*condition for Madison to eat the fruit.

- This statement makes it clear that Madison will eat all and only those fruits that are apples. She will not leave any apple uneaten, and she will not eat any other type of fruit. That a given fruit is an apple is both a

Sufficiency is the converse of necessity. That is to say, given *P*→*Q* (i.e. if *P* then *Q*), *P* would be a sufficient condition for *Q*, and *Q* would be a necessary condition for *P*. Also, given *P*→*Q*, it is true that *¬Q*→*¬P* (where ¬ is the negation operator, i.e. "not"). This means that the relationship between *P* and *Q*, established by *P*→*Q*, can be expressed in the following, all equivalent, ways:

*P*is sufficient for*Q**Q*is necessary for*P**¬Q*is sufficient for*¬P**¬P*is necessary for*¬Q*

As an example, take the first example above, which states *P*→*Q*, where *P* is "the fruit in question is an apple" and *Q* is "Madison will eat the fruit in question". The following are four equivalent ways of expressing this very relationship:

- If the fruit in question is an apple, then Madison will eat it.
- Only if Madison will eat the fruit in question, is it an apple.
- If Madison will not eat the fruit in question, then it is not an apple.
- Only if the fruit in question is not an apple, will Madison not eat it.

Here, the second example can be restated in the form of *if...then* as "If Madison will eat the fruit in question, then it is an apple"; taking this in conjunction with the first example, we find that the third example can be stated as "If the fruit in question is an apple, then Madison will eat it; *and* if Madison will eat the fruit, then it is an apple".

*A*is a proper subset of*B*. A number is in*A*only if it is in*B*; a number is in*B*if it is in*A*.*C*is a subset but not a proper subset of*B*. A number is in*B*if and only if it is in*C*, and a number is in*C*if and only if it is in*B*.

Euler diagrams show logical relationships among events, properties, and so forth. "P only if Q", "if P then Q", and "P→Q" all mean that P is a subset, either proper or improper, of Q. "P if Q", "if Q then P", and Q→P all mean that Q is a proper or improper subset of P. "P if and only if Q" and "Q if and only if P" both mean that the sets P and Q are identical to each other.

Iff is used outside the field of logic as well. Wherever logic is applied, especially in mathematical discussions, it has the same meaning as above: it is an abbreviation for *if and only if*, indicating that one statement is both necessary and sufficient for the other. This is an example of mathematical jargon (although, as noted above, *if* is more often used than *iff* in statements of definition).

The elements of *X* are *all and only* the elements of *Y* means: "For any *z* in the domain of discourse, *z* is in *X* if and only if *z* is in *Y*."

In propositional logic, **biconditional introduction** is a valid rule of inference. It allows for one to infer a biconditional from two conditional statements. The rule makes it possible to introduce a biconditional statement into a logical proof. If is true, and if is true, then one may infer that is true. For example, from the statements "if I'm breathing, then I'm alive" and "if I'm alive, then I'm breathing", it can be inferred that "I'm breathing if and only if I'm alive". Biconditional introduction is the converse of biconditional elimination. The rule can be stated formally as:

**Biconditional elimination** is the name of two valid rules of inference of propositional logic. It allows for one to infer a conditional from a biconditional. If is true, then one may infer that is true, and also that is true. For example, if it's true that I'm breathing if and only if I'm alive, then it's true that if I'm breathing, I'm alive; likewise, it's true that if I'm alive, I'm breathing. The rules can be stated formally as:

**First-order logic**—also known as **predicate logic**, **quantificational logic**, and **first-order predicate calculus**—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as "Socrates is a man", one can have expressions in the form "there exists x such that x is Socrates and x is a man", where "there exists*"* is a quantifier, while *x* is a variable. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic.

In logic, a **logical connective** is a logical constant. They can be used to connect logical formulas. For instance in the syntax of propositional logic, the binary connective can be used to join the two atomic formulas and , rendering the complex formula .

**Propositional calculus** is a branch of logic. It is also called **propositional logic**, **statement logic**, **sentential calculus**, **sentential logic**, or sometimes **zeroth-order logic**. It deals with propositions and relations between propositions, including the construction of arguments based on them. Compound propositions are formed by connecting propositions by logical connectives. Propositions that contain no logical connectives are called atomic propositions.

**Exclusive or** or **exclusive disjunction** is a logical operation that is true if and only if its arguments differ.

**Intuitionistic logic**, sometimes more generally called **constructive logic**, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not include the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic.

In logic and mathematics, **necessity** and **sufficiency** are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements. For example, in the conditional statement: "If *P* then *Q*", Q is **necessary** for P, because the truth of Q is guaranteed by the truth of *P*. Similarly, P is **sufficient** for Q, because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true.

In logic and mathematics, statements and are said to be **logically equivalent** if they have the same truth value in every model. The logical equivalence of and is sometimes expressed as , , , or , depending on the notation being used. However, these symbols are also used for material equivalence, so proper interpretation would depend on the context. Logical equivalence is different from material equivalence, although the two concepts are intrinsically related.

In logic and mathematics, the **logical biconditional**, sometimes known as the **material biconditional**, is the logical connective used to conjoin two statements P and Q to form the statement "P if and only if Q", where P is known as the *antecedent*, and Q the *consequent*. This is often abbreviated as "P iff Q". Other ways of denoting this operator may be seen occasionally, as a double-headed arrow, a prefixed E "E*pq*", an equality sign (=), an equivalence sign (≡), or *EQV*. It is logically equivalent to both and , and the XNOR boolean operator, which means "both or neither".

In propositional logic, **material implication** is a valid rule of replacement that allows for a conditional statement to be replaced by a disjunction in which the antecedent is negated. The rule states that *P implies Q* is logically equivalent to *not- or * and that either form can replace the other in logical proofs. In other words, if is true, then must also be true, while if is *not* true, then cannot be true either; additionally, when is not true, may be either true or false.

**Modal logic** is a collection of formal systems developed to represent statements about necessity and possibility. It plays a major role in philosophy of language, epistemology, metaphysics, and natural language semantics. Modal logics extend other systems by adding unary operators and , representing possibility and necessity respectively. For instance the modal formula can be read as "possibly " while can be read as "necessarily ". Modal logics can be used to represent different phenomena depending on what kind of necessity and possibility is under consideration. When is used to represent epistemic necessity, states that is epistemically necessary, or in other words that it is known. When is used to represent deontic necessity, states that is a moral or legal obligation.

In propositional logic, **double negation** is the theorem that states that "If a statement is true, then it is not the case that the statement is not true." This is expressed by saying that a proposition *A* is logically equivalent to *not (not-A*), or by the formula A ≡ ~(~A) where the sign ≡ expresses logical equivalence and the sign ~ expresses negation.

In logic, a **truth function** is a function that accepts truth values as input and produces a unique truth value as output. In other words: The input and output of a truth function are all truth values; a truth function will always output exactly one truth value; and inputting the same truth value(s) will always output the same truth value. The typical example is in propositional logic, wherein a compound statement is constructed using individual statements connected by logical connectives; if the truth value of the compound statement is entirely determined by the truth value(s) of the constituent statement(s), the compound statement is called a truth function, and any logical connectives used are said to be **truth functional**.

In propositional logic, **transposition** is a valid rule of replacement that permits one to switch the antecedent with the consequent of a conditional statement in a logical proof if they are also both negated. It is the inference from the truth of "*A* implies *B*" to the truth of "Not-*B* implies not-*A*", and conversely. It is very closely related to the rule of inference modus tollens. It is the rule that

**Logical equality** is a logical operator that corresponds to equality in Boolean algebra and to the logical biconditional in propositional calculus. It gives the functional value *true* if both functional arguments have the same logical value, and *false* if they are different.

The **XNOR gate** is a digital logic gate whose function is the logical complement of the Exclusive OR (XOR) gate. It is equivalent to the logical connective from mathematical logic, also known as the material biconditional. The two-input version implements logical equality, behaving according to the truth table to the right, and hence the gate is sometimes called an "equivalence gate". A high output (1) results if both of the inputs to the gate are the same. If one but not both inputs are high (1), a low output (0) results.

In logic, a **functionally complete** set of logical connectives or Boolean operators is one which can be used to express all possible truth tables by combining members of the set into a Boolean expression. A well-known complete set of connectives is { AND, NOT }. Each of the singleton sets { NAND } and { NOR } is functionally complete.

In logic and mathematics, **contraposition** refers to the inference of going from a conditional statement into its logically equivalent **contrapositive**, and an associated proof method known as proof by contraposition. The contrapositive of a statement has its antecedent and consequent inverted and flipped.

- ↑ Copi, I. M.; Cohen, C.; Flage, D. E. (2006).
*Essentials of Logic*(Second ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-13-238034-8. - ↑ Weisstein, Eric W. "Iff." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Iff.html
- ↑ E.g. Daepp, Ulrich; Gorkin, Pamela (2011),
*Reading, Writing, and Proving: A Closer Look at Mathematics*, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, p. 52, ISBN 9781441994790,While it can be a real time-saver, we don't recommend it in formal writing.

- ↑ Rothwell, Edward J.; Cloud, Michael J. (2014),
*Engineering Writing by Design: Creating Formal Documents of Lasting Value*, CRC Press, p. 98, ISBN 9781482234312,It is common in mathematical writing

- 1 2 Peil, Timothy. "Conditionals and Biconditionals".
*web.mnstate.edu*. Retrieved 4 September 2020. - ↑ p <=> q. Wolfram|Alpha
- ↑
*If and only if*, UHM Department of Mathematics,Theorems which have the form "P if and only Q" are much prized in mathematics. They give what are called "necessary and sufficient" conditions, and give completely equivalent and hopefully interesting new ways to say exactly the same thing.

- ↑ "XOR/XNOR/Odd Parity/Even Parity Gate".
*www.cburch.com*. Retrieved 22 October 2019. - ↑ Weisstein, Eric W. "Equivalent".
*mathworld.wolfram.com*. Retrieved 4 September 2020. - ↑ "Jan Łukasiewicz > Łukasiewicz's Parenthesis-Free or Polish Notation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)".
*plato.stanford.edu*. Retrieved 22 October 2019. - ↑ "LaTeX:Symbol".
*Art of Problem Solving*. Retrieved 22 October 2019. - ↑
*General Topology,*reissue ISBN 978-0-387-90125-1 - ↑ Nicholas J. Higham (1998).
*Handbook of writing for the mathematical sciences*(2nd ed.). SIAM. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-89871-420-3. - ↑ Maurer, Stephen B.; Ralston, Anthony (2005).
*Discrete Algorithmic Mathematics*(3rd ed.). Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. p. 60. ISBN 1568811667. - ↑ For instance, from
*General Topology*, p. 25: "A set is**countable**iff it is finite or countably infinite." [boldface in original] - ↑ Krantz, Steven G. (1996),
*A Primer of Mathematical Writing*, American Mathematical Society, p. 71, ISBN 978-0-8218-0635-7

Wikimedia Commons has media related to If and only if .

This page is based on this Wikipedia article

Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.

Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.

Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.