trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
The logical equivalence P and Q equivalent to P implies Q is equivalent to True
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Reference works on symbolic logic establish the standard equivalences between logical implication and equivalence.

Evidence for · 3
1959 · cited by 0
read “If p implies g and q implies r, then p implies r.”’ And 2-92 will be p = q is equivalent to ~p = 4 … be read ‘‘‘p is equivalent to q’ is equivalent to ‘(p is false) is equivalent to (q is false.)’”’ At … 2-2 p=q-=:pr7q-q>pD “7m is equivalent to q” is equivalent to “‘p implies q, and q implies p.” 2-3 p2p Any
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:for=2+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

More for · 2
1959 · cited by 0
“‘p is equivalent to q’ is equivalent to ‘(p is false) is equivalent to ( q is false … = ipoq.qop “p is equivalent to q” is equivalent to “p implies q, and q implies p.” 2-3 … “If p implies q and q implies r, then p implies r” And 2 • 92 will be p = q is equivalent
cited by 0
:. p \supset q .\equiv : p .\equiv . p . q }} , i.e. " p {\displaystyle \scriptstyle { p }} implies q {\displaystyle \scriptstyle { q }} " is equivalent to " p {\displaystyle
Everything we examined (3) — 2 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Symbolic logicreferencesame source L3no side taken
  2. Symbolic logicreferencesame source L3no side taken
  3. Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica/Introduction/Chapter 1referenceno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE · 005 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt