Suppose we know that there exists widgets. For any widget $X$, we have that the statements $A(X)$ and $B(X)$. Suppose it's true that for any $X$, $A(X) \not \Rightarrow B(X)$. How do I interpret this? I'd take it to mean that if there exists $X$ such that $A(X)$ is true, then it must be for some of these cases that $B(X)$ is false. Or does it mean that if $A(X)$ is true for all $X$, then there exists $X$ such that $B(X)$ is false?
I mean if we replace $A(X)$ by $A$ and $B(X)$ by $B$ and exclude widget specific properties, then if $A \not \Rightarrow B$ and $A$ is true, then I understand that there must exist cases for which $B$ is false. But if we include this widget specifier, then I'm not sure how to interpret this anymore.
If this is ill-posed or ambiguous (which I'm sure it is), feel free to point out what needs to be clarified.
$\endgroup$ 02 Answers
$\begingroup$The closest interpretation of what you say is, to me, $\forall X(\neg(A(X) \to B(X)))$. In this case it means that for each widget $W$ individually, you have $\neg(A(W) \to B(W))$. Using the truth table of $\to$, we see that this must mean that $A(W)$ holds, but $B(W)$ does not. Thus, for each widget $A$ holds while $B$ does not.
$\endgroup$ 4 $\begingroup$Without the quantifies and variables to cloud the issue...
$A\Rightarrow B \equiv \neg [A\land \neg B]$
So $A\nRightarrow B \equiv A \land \neg B$
$\endgroup$
