Wait, does that mean this is saying I am an imposter? Oh no, what if I am?
But wait, wasn't that thought imposter syndrome? That means I'm not an imposter.
Wait, now I'm back to not having imposter syndrome. Oh no.
1. If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs.
2. My cat has four legs.
3. Therefore, my cat is a dog.
The problem is the conclusion is the result of a reversal of the conditional statement. Similarly, you've said, essentially,
1. If I am an imposter, then I will not feel like an imposter.
2. I do not feel like an imposter.
3. Therefore I am an imposter.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
ETA: If your comment was a joke, then forget everything I wrote – which does not mean that if you forget everything I wrote, then your comment was a joke. :-)
But how are zebras on topic? Am I missing something
That being said it was probably just a joke and now we’ve both overanalyzed it lol
Actually, this wikipedia article for has got a specific section about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
Edit: I also just learned abou the 'Wason selection task' from that link. Cool stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task
"B if A" or "If A, then B" interpreted as
A -> B
The fallacy would then be to do the following
A -> B
B
------------
A
On the other hand, iff is interpreted as A <=> B
i.e. A -> B and B -> A
So you can get A or B if you have B or A respectively.
"if and only if" is "p->q and q->p" (also equivalent to "p->q and not(p)->not(q), the more intuitive sense of the phrase), it basically establishes equivalence: any proof that requires p also requires q and vice versa, any proof that guarantees p also guarantees q and vice versa.
For anyone with even a passing knowledge of symbolic logic, what you provided is clear. But the explanation wouldn't be required for those people who are going to be familiar with that Fallacy anyway. It's for those who aren't aware of it. In that case, the symbolic version is of no help and the longer verbal explanation is important.
But oh no, I think the edit window has closed for @ARandomerDude
It's more like a paradox where you start to loop. Similar to a sentence such as "I always lie".
Or it's kind of like a Dunning-Kruger where the premise would be that:
1. Smart people think they are dumb.
2. Dumb people think they are smart.
So you start to loop between those never being able to figure out if you are actually smart or dumb.
*laughs in Sinhalese*