9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

Logical connective
In logic, a logical connective (also called a logical
operator, sentential connective, or sentential
operator) is a logical constant. Connectives 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 .

Common connectives include negation, disjunction,

conjunction, implication, and equivalence. In standard
systems of classical logic, these connectives are
interpreted as truth functions, though they receive a
variety of alternative interpretations in nonclassical
logics. Their classical interpretations are similar to the
meanings of natural language expressions such as
English "not", "or", "and", and "if", but not identical.
Discrepancies between natural language connectives and
those of classical logic have motivated nonclassical
approaches to natural language meaning as well as
approaches which pair a classical compositional
semantics with a robust pragmatics.
Hasse diagram of logical connectives.
A logical connective is similar to, but not equivalent to, a
syntax commonly used in programming languages called
a conditional operator.[1]

Overview
In formal languages, truth functions are represented by unambiguous symbols. This allows logical
statements to not be understood in an ambiguous way. These symbols are called logical connectives,
logical operators, propositional operators, or, in classical logic, truth-functional connectives. For the
rules which allow new well-formed formulas to be constructed by joining other well-formed formulas
using truth-functional connectives, see well-formed formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 1/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

Logical connectives can be used to link zero or more statements, so one can speak about n-ary logical
connectives. The boolean constants True and False can be thought of as zero-ary operators. Negation is
a 1-ary connective, and so on.

Truth Venn
List of common logical connectives Symbol, name
table diagram
Commonly used logical connectives include the following Zeroary connectives (constants)
ones.[2] ⊤ Truth/tautology 1

Negation (not): , , (prefix) in which is the ⊥ Falsity/contradiction 0

most modern and widely used, and is used by
Unary connectives
many people too;
= 0 1
Conjunction (and): , , (prefix) in which is the
most modern and widely used; Proposition 0 1
Disjunction (or): , (prefix) in which is the most
modern and widely used; ¬ Negation 1 0
Implication (if...then): , , , (prefix) in which Binary connectives
is the most modern and widely used, and is used = 0 0 11
by many people too; = 0 1 01
Equivalence (if and only if): , , , , (prefix)
in which is the most modern and widely used, and Proposition 0011
may be also a good choice compared to
denoting implication just like to . Proposition 0101

For example, the meaning of the statements it is raining ∧ Conjunction 0001

(denoted by ) and I am indoors (denoted by ) is
transformed, when the two are combined with logical ↑ Alternative denial 1110
connectives: ∨ Disjunction 0111

It is not raining ( ); ↓ Joint denial 1000

It is raining and I am indoors ( );
→ Material conditional 1101
It is raining or I am indoors ( );
If it is raining, then I am indoors ( ); Exclusive or 0110
If I am indoors, then it is raining ( );
↔ Biconditional 1001
I am indoors if and only if it is raining ( ).
It is also common to consider the always true formula ← Converse implication 1011
and the always false formula to be connective (in which More information
case they are nullary).

True formula: , , (prefix), or ;

False formula: , , (prefix), or .
This table summarizes the terminology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 2/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

Connective In English Noun for parts Verb phrase

Conjunction Both A and B conjunct A and B are conjoined

Disjunction Either A or B, or both disjunct A and B are disjoined

Negation It is not the case that A negatum/negand A is negated

Conditional If A, then B antecedent, consequent B is implied by A

Biconditional A if, and only if, B equivalents A and B are equivalent

History of notations
Negation: the symbol appeared in Heyting in 1930[3][4] (compare to Frege's symbol ⫟ in his
Begriffsschrift[5]); the symbol appeared in Russell in 1908;[6] an alternative notation is to add a
horizontal line on top of the formula, as in ; another alternative notation is to use a prime symbol as
in .
Conjunction: the symbol appeared in Heyting in 1930[3] (compare to Peano's use of the set-
theoretic notation of intersection [7]); the symbol appeared at least in Schönfinkel in 1924;[8] the
symbol comes from Boole's interpretation of logic as an elementary algebra.
Disjunction: the symbol appeared in Russell in 1908[6] (compare to Peano's use of the set-
theoretic notation of union ); the symbol is also used, in spite of the ambiguity coming from the
fact that the of ordinary elementary algebra is an exclusive or when interpreted logically in a two-
element ring; punctually in the history a together with a dot in the lower right corner has been
used by Peirce.[9]
Implication: the symbol appeared in Hilbert in 1918;[10]: 76 was used by Russell in 1908[6]
(compare to Peano's Ɔ the inverted C); appeared in Bourbaki in 1954.[11]
Equivalence: the symbol in Frege in 1879;[12] in Becker in 1933 (not the first time and for this
see the following); [13] appeared in Bourbaki in 1954;[14] other symbols appeared punctually in the
history, such as in Gentzen,[15] in Schönfinkel[8] or in Chazal, [16]
True: the symbol comes from Boole's interpretation of logic as an elementary algebra over the
two-element Boolean algebra; other notations include (abbreviation for the Latin word "verum") to
be found in Peano in 1889.
False: the symbol comes also from Boole's interpretation of logic as a ring; other notations include
(rotated ) to be found in Peano in 1889.
Some authors used letters for connectives: for conjunction (German's "und" for "and") and for
disjunction (German's "oder" for "or") in early works by Hilbert (1904); [17] for negation, for
conjunction, for alternative denial, for disjunction, for implication, for biconditional
in Łukasiewicz in 1929.

Redundancy
Such a logical connective as converse implication " " is actually the same as material conditional with
swapped arguments; thus, the symbol for converse implication is redundant. In some logical calculi
(notably, in classical logic), certain essentially different compound statements are logically equivalent. A
less trivial example of a redundancy is the classical equivalence between and . Therefore, a
classical-based logical system does not need the conditional operator " " if " " (not) and " " (or) are
already in use, or may use the " " only as a syntactic sugar for a compound having one negation and
one disjunction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 3/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

There are sixteen Boolean functions associating the input truth values and with four-digit binary
outputs.[18] These correspond to possible choices of binary logical connectives for classical logic.
Different implementations of classical logic can choose different functionally complete subsets of
connectives.

One approach is to choose a minimal set, and define other connectives by some logical form, as in the
example with the material conditional above. The following are the minimal functionally complete sets
of operators in classical logic whose arities do not exceed 2:

One element
, .
Two elements
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , .
Three elements
, , , , , .

Another approach is to use with equal rights connectives of a certain convenient and functionally
complete, but not minimal set. This approach requires more propositional axioms, and each
equivalence between logical forms must be either an axiom or provable as a theorem.

The situation, however, is more complicated in intuitionistic logic. Of its five connectives, {∧, ∨, →, ¬,
⊥}, only negation "¬" can be reduced to other connectives (see False (logic) § False, negation and
contradiction for more). Neither conjunction, disjunction, nor material conditional has an equivalent
form constructed from the other four logical connectives.

Natural language
The standard logical connectives of classical logic have rough equivalents in the grammars of natural
languages. In English, as in many languages, such expressions are typically grammatical conjunctions.
However, they can also take the form of complementizers, verb suffixes, and particles. The denotations
of natural language connectives is a major topic of research in formal semantics, a field that studies the
logical structure of natural languages.

The meanings of natural language connectives are not precisely identical to their nearest equivalents in
classical logic. In particular, disjunction can receive an exclusive interpretation in many languages.
Some researchers have taken this fact as evidence that natural language semantics is nonclassical.
However, others maintain classical semantics by positing pragmatic accounts of exclusivity which create
the illusion of nonclassicality. In such accounts, exclusivity is typically treated as a scalar implicature.
Related puzzles involving disjunction include free choice inferences, Hurford's Constraint, and the
contribution of disjunction in alternative questions.

Other apparent discrepancies between natural language and classical logic include the paradoxes of
material implication, donkey anaphora and the problem of counterfactual conditionals. These
phenomena have been taken as motivation for identifying the denotations of natural language
conditionals with logical operators including the strict conditional, the variably strict conditional, as
well as various dynamic operators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 4/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

The following table shows the standard classically definable approximations for the English
connectives.

English word Connective Symbol Logical gate

not negation NOT

and conjunction AND

or disjunction OR

if...then material implication IMPLY

...if converse implication

either...or exclusive disjunction XOR

if and only if biconditional XNOR

not both alternative denial NAND

neither...nor joint denial NOR

but not material nonimplication NIMPLY

Properties
Some logical connectives possess properties that may be expressed in the theorems containing the
connective. Some of those properties that a logical connective may have are:

Associativity
Within an expression containing two or more of the same associative connectives in a row, the
order of the operations does not matter as long as the sequence of the operands is not changed.
Commutativity
The operands of the connective may be swapped, preserving logical equivalence to the original
expression.
Distributivity
A connective denoted by · distributes over another connective denoted by +, if
a · (b + c) = (a · b) + (a · c) for all operands a, b, c.
Idempotence
Whenever the operands of the operation are the same, the compound is logically equivalent to the
operand.
Absorption
A pair of connectives ∧, ∨ satisfies the absorption law if for all operands a, b.
Monotonicity
If f(a1, ..., an) ≤ f(b1, ..., bn) for all a1, ..., an, b1, ..., bn ∈ {0,1} such that a1 ≤ b1, a2 ≤ b2, ..., an ≤ bn.
E.g., ∨, ∧, ⊤, ⊥.
Affinity
Each variable always makes a difference in the truth-value of the operation or it never makes a
difference. E.g., ¬, ↔, , ⊤, ⊥.
Duality
To read the truth-value assignments for the operation from top to bottom on its truth table is the
same as taking the complement of reading the table of the same or another connective from
bottom to top. Without resorting to truth tables it may be formulated as
g̃(¬a1, ..., ¬an) = ¬g(a1, ..., an). E.g., ¬.
Truth-preserving

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 5/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

The compound all those arguments are tautologies is a tautology itself. E.g., ∨, ∧, ⊤, →, ↔, ⊂
(see validity).
Falsehood-preserving
The compound all those argument are contradictions is a contradiction itself. E.g., ∨, ∧, , ⊥, ⊄,
⊅ (see validity).
Involutivity (for unary connectives)
f(f(a)) = a. E.g. negation in classical logic.
For classical and intuitionistic logic, the "=" symbol means that corresponding implications "...→..." and
"...←..." for logical compounds can be both proved as theorems, and the "≤" symbol means that "...→..."
for logical compounds is a consequence of corresponding "...→..." connectives for propositional
variables. Some many-valued logics may have incompatible definitions of equivalence and order
(entailment).

Both conjunction and disjunction are associative, commutative and idempotent in classical logic, most
varieties of many-valued logic and intuitionistic logic. The same is true about distributivity of
conjunction over disjunction and disjunction over conjunction, as well as for the absorption law.

In classical logic and some varieties of many-valued logic, conjunction and disjunction are dual, and
negation is self-dual, the latter is also self-dual in intuitionistic logic.

Order of precedence
As a way of reducing the number of necessary parentheses, one may introduce precedence rules: ¬ has
higher precedence than ∧, ∧ higher than ∨, and ∨ higher than →. So for example, is
short for .

Here is a table that shows a commonly used precedence of logical operators.[19][20]

Operator Precedence

2
3

However, not all compilers use the same order; for instance, an ordering in which disjunction is lower
precedence than implication or bi-implication has also been used.[21] Sometimes precedence between
conjunction and disjunction is unspecified requiring to provide it explicitly in given formula with
parentheses. The order of precedence determines which connective is the "main connective" when
interpreting a non-atomic formula.

Table and Hasse diagram

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 6/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

The 16 logical connectives can be partially ordered to produce the following Hasse diagram. The partial
order is defined by declaring that if and only if whenever holds then so does

Applications
Logical connectives are used in computer science and in set theory.

Computer science
A truth-functional approach to logical operators is implemented as logic gates in digital circuits.
Practically all digital circuits (the major exception is DRAM) are built up from NAND, NOR, NOT, and
transmission gates; see more details in Truth function in computer science. Logical operators over bit
vectors (corresponding to finite Boolean algebras) are bitwise operations.

But not every usage of a logical connective in computer programming has a Boolean semantic. For
example, lazy evaluation is sometimes implemented for P ∧ Q and P ∨ Q, so these connectives are not
commutative if either or both of the expressions P, Q have side effects. Also, a conditional, which in
some sense corresponds to the material conditional connective, is essentially non-Boolean because for

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 7/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

if (P) then Q;, the consequent Q is not executed if the antecedent P is false (although a compound as
a whole is successful ≈ "true" in such case). This is closer to intuitionist and constructivist views on the
material conditional— rather than to classical logic's views.

Set theory
Logical connectives are used to define the fundamental operations of set theory,[22] as follows:

Set theory operations and connectives

Set operation Connective Definition

[23][24][25]
Intersection Conjunction

Union Disjunction [26][23][24]

Complement Negation [27][24][28]

[29][24][30]
Subset Implication

Equality Biconditional [29][24][31]

This definition of set equality is equivalent to the axiom of extensionality.

See also
Boolean domain
Philosophy portal
Boolean function
Boolean logic Psychology portal
Boolean-valued function
Catuṣkoṭi
Dialetheism
Four-valued logic
List of Boolean algebra topics
Logical conjunction
Logical constant
Modal operator
Propositional calculus
Term logic
Tetralemma
Truth function
Truth table
Truth values

References
1. Cogwheel. "What is the difference between logical and conditional /operator/" (https://stackoverflow.
com/questions/3154132/what-is-the-difference-between-logical-and-conditional-and-or-in-c). Stack
Overflow. Retrieved 9 April 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 8/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

2. Chao, C. (2023). 数理逻辑：形式化方法的应用 [Mathematical Logic: Applications of the

Formalization Method] (in Chinese). Beijing: Preprint. pp. 15–28.
3. Heyting, A. (1930). "Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik". Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse (in German): 42–
56.
4. Denis Roegel (2002), A brief survey of 20th century logical notations (https://members.loria.fr/Roege
l/loc/symboles-logiques-eng.pdf) (see chart on page 2).
5. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen
Denkens. Halle a/S.: Verlag von Louis Nebert. p. 10.
6. Russell (1908) Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types (American Journal of
Mathematics 30, p222–262, also in From Frege to Gödel edited by van Heijenoort).
7. Peano (1889) Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita.
8. Schönfinkel (1924) Über die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik, translated as On the building
blocks of mathematical logic in From Frege to Gödel edited by van Heijenoort.
9. Peirce (1867) On an improvement in Boole's calculus of logic.
10. Hilbert, D. (1918). Bernays, P. (ed.). Prinzipien der Mathematik. Lecture notes at Universität
Göttingen, Winter Semester, 1917-1918; Reprinted as Hilbert, D. (2013). "Prinzipien der
Mathematik". In Ewald, W.; Sieg, W. (eds.). David Hilbert's Lectures on the Foundations of
Arithmetic and Logic 1917–1933. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht and London: Springer. pp. 59–
221.
11. Bourbaki, N. (1954). Théorie des ensembles. Paris: Hermann & Cie, Éditeurs. p. 14.
12. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen
Denkens (in German). Halle a/S.: Verlag von Louis Nebert. p. 15.
13. Becker, A. (1933). Die Aristotelische Theorie der Möglichkeitsschlösse: Eine logisch-philologische
Untersuchung der Kapitel 13-22 von Aristoteles' Analytica priora I (in German). Berlin: Junker und
Dünnhaupt Verlag. p. 4.
14. Bourbaki, N. (1954). Théorie des ensembles (in French). Paris: Hermann & Cie, Éditeurs. p. 32.
15. Gentzen (1934) Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen.
16. Chazal (1996) : Éléments de logique formelle.
17. Hilbert, D. (1905) [1904]. "Über die Grundlagen der Logik und der Arithmetik". In Krazer, K. (ed.).
Verhandlungen des Dritten Internationalen Mathematiker Kongresses in Heidelberg vom 8. bis 13.
August 1904. pp. 174–185.
18. Bocheński (1959), A Précis of Mathematical Logic, passim.
19. O'Donnell, John; Hall, Cordelia; Page, Rex (2007), Discrete Mathematics Using a Computer (https://
books.google.com/books?id=KKxyQQWQam4C&pg=PA120), Springer, p. 120,
ISBN 9781846285981.
20. Allen, Colin; Hand, Michael (2022). Logic primer (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press. ISBN 978-0-262-54364-4.
21. Jackson, Daniel (2012), Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=DDv8Ie_jBUQC&pg=PA263), MIT Press, p. 263, ISBN 9780262017152.
22. Pinter, Charles C. (2014). A book of set theory. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. pp. 26–
29. ISBN 978-0-486-49708-2.
23. "Set operations" (https://www.siue.edu/~jloreau/courses/math-223/notes/sec-set-operations.html).
www.siue.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
24. "1.5 Logic and Sets" (https://www.whitman.edu/mathematics/higher_math_online/section01.05.htm
l). www.whitman.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
25. "Theory Set" (https://mirror.clarkson.edu/isabelle/dist/library/HOL/HOL/Set.html).
mirror.clarkson.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 9/10
9/27/24, 1:05 PM Logical connective - Wikipedia

26. "Set Inclusion and Relations" (https://autry.sites.grinnell.edu/csc208/readings/set-inclusion.html).

autry.sites.grinnell.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
27. "Complement and Set Difference" (https://web.mnstate.edu/peil/MDEV102/U1/S6/Complement3.ht
m). web.mnstate.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
28. Cooper, A. "Set Operations and Subsets – Foundations of Mathematics" (https://ma225.wordpress.n
csu.edu/set-operations-and-subsets/). Retrieved 2024-06-11.
29. "Basic concepts" (https://www.siue.edu/~jloreau/courses/math-223/notes/sec-set-basics.html).
www.siue.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
30. Cooper, A. "Set Operations and Subsets – Foundations of Mathematics" (https://ma225.wordpress.n
csu.edu/set-operations-and-subsets/). Retrieved 2024-06-11.
31. Cooper, A. "Set Operations and Subsets – Foundations of Mathematics" (https://ma225.wordpress.n
csu.edu/set-operations-and-subsets/). Retrieved 2024-06-11.

Sources
Bocheński, Józef Maria (1959), A Précis of Mathematical Logic, translated from the French and
German editions by Otto Bird, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, South Holland.
Chao, C. (2023). 数理逻辑：形式化方法的应用 [Mathematical Logic: Applications of the
Formalization Method] (in Chinese). Beijing: Preprint. pp. 15–28.
Enderton, Herbert (2001), A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd ed.), Boston, MA: Academic
Press, ISBN 978-0-12-238452-3
Gamut, L.T.F (1991), "Chapter 2", Logic, Language and Meaning, vol. 1, University of Chicago
Press, pp. 54–64, OCLC 21372380 (https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/21372380)
Rautenberg, W. (2010), A Concise Introduction to Mathematical Logic (3rd ed.), New York: Springer
Science+Business Media, doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1221-3 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-
1221-3), ISBN 978-1-4419-1220-6.
Humberstone, Lloyd (2011). The Connectives. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01654-4.

External links
"Propositional connective" (https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Propositional_conn
ective), Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]
Lloyd Humberstone (2010), "Sentence Connectives in Formal Logic (https://plato.stanford.edu/entrie
s/connectives-logic/)", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (An abstract algebraic logic approach to
connectives.)
John MacFarlane (2005), "Logical constants (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-constants/)",
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logical_connective&oldid=1246416320"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective 10/10