@Noob You don't. Not every statement can be proven or disproven. And you must not keep mixing English with logic. Natural language is strongly reliant on context, and there are various constructs to make it easier to say things.

@Noob This English statement, for example, is not an implication!! It is a natural-language construct that actually means "For any specific place p on earth, for any time t, if rain falls on p at time t, then p gets wet."

Note the two quantifications that are implicit in the natural-language version but are a critical part of the meaning.

And it's better not to attempt reasoning in natural language. First translate what you want to reason about into purely logical form, because that is the only way of making it 100% precise.

In the above example, it would be like "∀p∈PlacesOnEarth ∀t∈Times ( RainFalls(p,t) ⇒ GetsWet(p) )", where PlacesOnEarth, Times, RainFalls and GetsWet are appropriately interpreted. Without an interpretation, this statement is of course meaningless. But the issue is whether you have sufficient assumptions allowing you to do the reasoning you want after the logical translation. In particular, you cannot prove this statement without any other assumptions.

But if you have some assumptions like "∀p∈PlacesOnEarth ∀t∈Times ( RainFalls(p,t) ⇒ WaterGetsOn(p,t) )" and "∀p∈PlacesOnEarth ∀t∈Times ( WaterGetsOn(p,t) ∧ WaterCanStayOn(p) ⇒ GetsWet(p,t) )", then you can actually purely logically deduce "∀p∈PlacesOnEarth ∀t∈Times ( WaterCanStayOn(p) ∧ RainFalls(p,t) ⇒ GetsWet(p) )", which is in English is something like "Whenever it rains on a place that water can stay on, then that place gets wet."

Note that this is more accurate than yours.

Likewise for all your "if heart stops" attempts, which are too imprecise to be meaningful.

@Noob You can just post your inquiries here and if someone doesn't address it I will.

I hope you get the point in my above example. It can be complicated to translate English into logical form.

@vesii Yes too advanced haha. Why don't you just ask on Main (including what you've tried)? Or you can try the main chat-room.

@user21820 i am describing what i understand : but if still there is some discrepency let me know

@user21820 what i understand is implication just says " for the case when P=true and Q= false must be illogical or false" , its what you told at first it took long to realise it . What is interesting is , in implication we only argue about when P = true , but if P= false , the implication does not care how illogical( false in real life ) or logical ( true in real life ) the sentence sounds , for implication its correct .

@user21820 That is to say , the implication " if x=3, then 2x=6 " is right implication because for case . x=3 , 2x =/= 6 is totally ilogical ( false) hence its true implication. Now looking at case 3 ( p = false , q=true") the case in real life is false but implication never tell you to logically deduce whether the case formed when P=false are true or false. It just does not care hence to argue for case 3 about its trueness is not part of implication whether its ok in real life or not .

@user21820 if you find something wrong here please tell me .

or if somebody else find it wrong.

tell me