Previous talk page notes may be found at Talk:Contraposition (traditional logic).
The article says it utilizes a
Venn diagram to illustrate contraposition, but isn't
in actuality an
Euler diagram?
80.221.242.122 (
talk)
20:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not fluent in english, so I don't dare to start messing up the page. But I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with the example about contradiction. I slightly agree that these shouldn't even be on this page in the first place. But the story about red objects having color is totally messed up.
If contradiction is the correct english term for turning into then the contradiction og the red-color thing would be something like: A red object does not have a color.
The claim about truth of contradictions under truth is also wrong. I'd suggest to remove all these altogether, since the page is not about logic in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.18.143.116 ( talk) 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The example given is rather confusing and may give the casual reader the impression that proving by the contrapositive is the same as proving by contradiction. Donald Hosek 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The example with houses and buildings is not very obvious to me, since I think not every reader sees the same set/subset relation on them. I know people who claim that buildings and houses are mutually exclusive. Anton
A conditional statement doesn't always makes sense, if it doesn't then it would be false but still a converse statement. 72.18.39.72 ( talk) 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
give me money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.100.12 ( talk) 00:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to write a more confusing header for an article? I know enough logic to know that it is technically accurate, but this is not wikipedia quality! (This comment is most likely time sensitive) 68.144.80.168 ( talk) 14:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As nonsense, the header cannot be technically accurate! Look again, it starts by saying that contraposition (normally, in bold) is a logical relationship between two conditional statements. Then, it gives the "bat is a mammal" statement and its contrapositive. Since now, it concentrates exclusively on the properties of original statement and its contrapositive, leaving any contraposition behind. That is, no contraposition anymore, nor how it is related to the original statement and its contrapositive (or, which relationship is implied by the def? -- This is not clear at all). Instead, it says that The contrapositive of a conditional statement is true if the original statement is true. This undermines any sense completely. Which the conditional statement are you talking about? Telling about the contrapositive of conditional makes me to think that there is a conditional besides the original and its contrapositive. [Self-chensorship] such technicality. -- Javalenok ( talk) 11:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
not contradiction, converse or inverse! contraposition! why are we talking about the others at all!? -- Aquillyne-- ( talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the difference between transposition (logic) and contrapositive (logic). Should we merge? -- Michael C. Price talk 09:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason you are confused Michael Price is because this article is awful and really unnecessary. The categorical position is handled by the article on Contraposition (traditional logic) and the implicative nature is handled by the article Transposition (logic). This article is defined by mathematicians and they do not recognize or understand the difference between implicative and categorical statements. Amerindianarts ( talk) 09:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The content of the above comment by 134.124.73.201 ( talk) is sufficient to show who the ignorant person really is. People like this who bad-mouth and name call but don't have the balls to register really don't have any business here, and they definitely lack credibility. Amerindianarts ( talk) 08:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the contributions of this user 134.124.73.201 ( talk). Absolutely nothing substantive. Just stupid, off the wall comments with no content, bad grammar, and lack of logical thought. As a matter of fact, this is probably an alias used by another user when they wish to cuss, name call, trash talk, and make stupid comments that they wouldn't make under their real ID. I guess the good in this is that it shows that they may have an inkling of conscience by using a false ID to mask their insolence, but a definite lack of consciousness or conscientiousness. Amerindianarts ( talk) 08:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I explained why in the history. Blind man shady 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The example is a bit ironic given that there's ~3000M dark-haired girls in the whole world but only ~200M girls total in the US. I.e. it would take 15x longer using the contrapositive. 101.161.153.133 ( talk) 23:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Man, was I disappointed when I found out this page was not about the posing in the Contra game series... 84.112.78.162 ( talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
There are five Wikipedia articles that seem to be about the same thing. Can these be combined down to fewer, or just one? Or if there are important distinctions that cannot be handled in one merged article, the distinctions need to be explained! Not every term needs an article...could some of these just be soft links to wiktionary entries? The five are:
Do these differ, or not? Must they all have separate articles? I hope not. -- do ncr am 23:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Contraposition is obviously an instance of Bayes' theorem. It is illustrated with a simple proof and has a source reference, so please leave the section Correspondence to other mathematical frameworks. It is certainly not a fringe view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josang ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Not clear that this is distinct from the topic at the non-disambiguated title, and Contraposition is not so long that the traditional logic section needs to be spun-off Wug· a·po·des 18:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The system of symbolic logic notation used on this page, with right angle thingies for negation and rightward pointing arrows for if-then statements, is not the only one. What is it called? Is it the most common notation? If not, what is the most common notation? If I wanted to write out a statement of logic on a sign or a T-shirt and have it be recognized by as many geeks as possible, which system of notation should I use? Pciszek ( talk) 14:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Previous talk page notes may be found at Talk:Contraposition (traditional logic).
The article says it utilizes a
Venn diagram to illustrate contraposition, but isn't
in actuality an
Euler diagram?
80.221.242.122 (
talk)
20:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not fluent in english, so I don't dare to start messing up the page. But I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with the example about contradiction. I slightly agree that these shouldn't even be on this page in the first place. But the story about red objects having color is totally messed up.
If contradiction is the correct english term for turning into then the contradiction og the red-color thing would be something like: A red object does not have a color.
The claim about truth of contradictions under truth is also wrong. I'd suggest to remove all these altogether, since the page is not about logic in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.18.143.116 ( talk) 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The example given is rather confusing and may give the casual reader the impression that proving by the contrapositive is the same as proving by contradiction. Donald Hosek 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The example with houses and buildings is not very obvious to me, since I think not every reader sees the same set/subset relation on them. I know people who claim that buildings and houses are mutually exclusive. Anton
A conditional statement doesn't always makes sense, if it doesn't then it would be false but still a converse statement. 72.18.39.72 ( talk) 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
give me money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.100.12 ( talk) 00:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to write a more confusing header for an article? I know enough logic to know that it is technically accurate, but this is not wikipedia quality! (This comment is most likely time sensitive) 68.144.80.168 ( talk) 14:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As nonsense, the header cannot be technically accurate! Look again, it starts by saying that contraposition (normally, in bold) is a logical relationship between two conditional statements. Then, it gives the "bat is a mammal" statement and its contrapositive. Since now, it concentrates exclusively on the properties of original statement and its contrapositive, leaving any contraposition behind. That is, no contraposition anymore, nor how it is related to the original statement and its contrapositive (or, which relationship is implied by the def? -- This is not clear at all). Instead, it says that The contrapositive of a conditional statement is true if the original statement is true. This undermines any sense completely. Which the conditional statement are you talking about? Telling about the contrapositive of conditional makes me to think that there is a conditional besides the original and its contrapositive. [Self-chensorship] such technicality. -- Javalenok ( talk) 11:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
not contradiction, converse or inverse! contraposition! why are we talking about the others at all!? -- Aquillyne-- ( talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the difference between transposition (logic) and contrapositive (logic). Should we merge? -- Michael C. Price talk 09:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason you are confused Michael Price is because this article is awful and really unnecessary. The categorical position is handled by the article on Contraposition (traditional logic) and the implicative nature is handled by the article Transposition (logic). This article is defined by mathematicians and they do not recognize or understand the difference between implicative and categorical statements. Amerindianarts ( talk) 09:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The content of the above comment by 134.124.73.201 ( talk) is sufficient to show who the ignorant person really is. People like this who bad-mouth and name call but don't have the balls to register really don't have any business here, and they definitely lack credibility. Amerindianarts ( talk) 08:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the contributions of this user 134.124.73.201 ( talk). Absolutely nothing substantive. Just stupid, off the wall comments with no content, bad grammar, and lack of logical thought. As a matter of fact, this is probably an alias used by another user when they wish to cuss, name call, trash talk, and make stupid comments that they wouldn't make under their real ID. I guess the good in this is that it shows that they may have an inkling of conscience by using a false ID to mask their insolence, but a definite lack of consciousness or conscientiousness. Amerindianarts ( talk) 08:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I explained why in the history. Blind man shady 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The example is a bit ironic given that there's ~3000M dark-haired girls in the whole world but only ~200M girls total in the US. I.e. it would take 15x longer using the contrapositive. 101.161.153.133 ( talk) 23:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Man, was I disappointed when I found out this page was not about the posing in the Contra game series... 84.112.78.162 ( talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
There are five Wikipedia articles that seem to be about the same thing. Can these be combined down to fewer, or just one? Or if there are important distinctions that cannot be handled in one merged article, the distinctions need to be explained! Not every term needs an article...could some of these just be soft links to wiktionary entries? The five are:
Do these differ, or not? Must they all have separate articles? I hope not. -- do ncr am 23:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Contraposition is obviously an instance of Bayes' theorem. It is illustrated with a simple proof and has a source reference, so please leave the section Correspondence to other mathematical frameworks. It is certainly not a fringe view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josang ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Not clear that this is distinct from the topic at the non-disambiguated title, and Contraposition is not so long that the traditional logic section needs to be spun-off Wug· a·po·des 18:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The system of symbolic logic notation used on this page, with right angle thingies for negation and rightward pointing arrows for if-then statements, is not the only one. What is it called? Is it the most common notation? If not, what is the most common notation? If I wanted to write out a statement of logic on a sign or a T-shirt and have it be recognized by as many geeks as possible, which system of notation should I use? Pciszek ( talk) 14:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)