This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Logic translation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Logic translation has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 23, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Logic translation appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
BorgQueen (
talk)
07:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The problem of adequately transforming statements of natural language into the formalism of standard propositional or predicate logic is a problem most students of logic encounter without being presented with satisfactory solutions. ... Nevertheless, formalizations are frequently used as a means to reconstruct arguments or to prove theorems ... Proofs involving the transformation of ordinary language to a formalism, such as validity proofs of ordinary language arguments or proofs of metamathematical theorems, are convincing only if they rely on a systematic understanding of the adequacy of the formalizations resorted to.
(HF1) "∀x (Is-a-donkey(x) → Has-ears(x)) ... The problem with this suggestion is obvious: we would have to explain what kind of formula (HF1) is and to which language it belongs. If the terms Is-a-donkey and Has-ears are expressions just borrowed from natural language, then (HF1) is not really a formula of any of the usual logical languages. In fact, it is no more a formula of CPL than it is an English sentence. Though it is easily readable for any English speaker acquainted with basic logical symbols, it combines expressions that do not really fit together. It might seem that it would be possible to establish a hybrid language that would combine logical symbols with natural language expressions in the way (HF1) does ... The next step is then relatively easy – it involves a transformation of this paraphrase into an expression of the "hybrid" kind of language mentioned above ... We often proceed by paraphrasing and by "translating" the sentence into a formula of a kind of hybrid language, from which we then can abstract away the (extralogical) remnants of natural language
Created by Phlsph7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Logic translation; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dylnuge ( talk · contribs) 20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey @
Phlsph7, I'm picking up this review as part of the August GAN backlog drive! I look forward to reading and reviewing the article. I like to leave comments and questions as I go through the process. Feel free at any time to respond to these, though if you prefer you can also wait until I finish reviewing and address everything at once.
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Initial comments: No copyvio issues and sources are clearly cited through the article. Images exist, are properly captioned, are relevant and useful to the subject of the article. Article contents is stable. The article is lengthy (prosesize 8348 words/34 kB @ 1170317206), but I didn't spot glaring concerns with respect to its broadness and focus; specific improvements here can be addressed in detailed review. Prose looks generally solid; improvements to ensure the article is accessible to a general audience can again go in detailed review. There's an independent criticism section, which can be a neutrality issue, but again in first pass nothing stands out as a serious issue and we can address any problems in detailed criticism. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 21:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Source Review
Unfortunately, however, ordinary linguistic usage often obscures the form of an argument. To dispel this obscurity, logic introduces various simplifying procedures.and
Th us, when we say that the logical operators may be used to translate expressions in ordinary language, we mean that the operators capture a certain aspect of their correlative English expressions.. From Baumgartner and Lampert:
None of the representatives of the traditional picture claim to offer sets of rules that would be severally necessary and jointly sufficient to resolve controversial mappings of logical formulae to statements. Rather, by reconstructing the theoretical underpinnings of the usual practice, they attempt to develop informal guidelines that shall help to clarify controversial formalizations. I think this is also an example of a place where the EB reference can be dropped without incident; the other sources seem more than sufficient to validate.
And, as we suggested, it is equally clear that we cannot make use of the criterion that might come as the most natural one...the agreement of truth conditions.
There are subtleties to our ordinary claims that far outstrip their mere truth values. Sarcasm; poetry; snide implicature; emphasis; these are important parts of everyday discourse, but none of this is retained in TFL.and
But TFL just is totally unequipped to deal with meaning..
I'm highly satisfied with this spot check; as I noted in the above, it may be the case that sometimes more sources are cited than needed to make a claim, but it does not appear to ever be the case that citation is insufficient to validate. Full pass on GA criteria 2.
Overall Comments: Overall the article is in a great state. Sourcing is thorough, reliable for the claims being made, and does not consist of original research. I am satisfied that the appropriately focused on the topic and broad enough to cover everything of interest, especially with improvements to the "basic concepts" section. Things are well written, clear to the reader, have an appropriate balance between technical depth and general accessibility, and free of major grammatical or spelling errors (I did some minor fixes here as I found them; feel free to double check).
On hold — I'd like to see the criticism section address how widespread the concerns raised are and what they mean for the actual practice of logic translation (e.g. looking at sources it seems like these are generally acknowledged limitations but not arguments against doing any formalizations). I'd also like to see usages of phrasing like "some theorists" expanded if possible to clarify how widely accepted the positions being argued are. Otherwise everything looks good and I see no reason not to list. Let me know when you're done addressing the comments here and I'll be happy to finalize this!
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
21:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Passed — Article meets all GA criteria and outstanding concerns have been addressed. Listing.
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
15:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This article does not mention semantic parsing. Is this essentially the same as logic translation, since it consists of translating statements from a natural language into a logical form? Jarble ( talk) 23:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Logic translation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Logic translation has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 23, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Logic translation appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
BorgQueen (
talk)
07:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The problem of adequately transforming statements of natural language into the formalism of standard propositional or predicate logic is a problem most students of logic encounter without being presented with satisfactory solutions. ... Nevertheless, formalizations are frequently used as a means to reconstruct arguments or to prove theorems ... Proofs involving the transformation of ordinary language to a formalism, such as validity proofs of ordinary language arguments or proofs of metamathematical theorems, are convincing only if they rely on a systematic understanding of the adequacy of the formalizations resorted to.
(HF1) "∀x (Is-a-donkey(x) → Has-ears(x)) ... The problem with this suggestion is obvious: we would have to explain what kind of formula (HF1) is and to which language it belongs. If the terms Is-a-donkey and Has-ears are expressions just borrowed from natural language, then (HF1) is not really a formula of any of the usual logical languages. In fact, it is no more a formula of CPL than it is an English sentence. Though it is easily readable for any English speaker acquainted with basic logical symbols, it combines expressions that do not really fit together. It might seem that it would be possible to establish a hybrid language that would combine logical symbols with natural language expressions in the way (HF1) does ... The next step is then relatively easy – it involves a transformation of this paraphrase into an expression of the "hybrid" kind of language mentioned above ... We often proceed by paraphrasing and by "translating" the sentence into a formula of a kind of hybrid language, from which we then can abstract away the (extralogical) remnants of natural language
Created by Phlsph7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Logic translation; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dylnuge ( talk · contribs) 20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey @
Phlsph7, I'm picking up this review as part of the August GAN backlog drive! I look forward to reading and reviewing the article. I like to leave comments and questions as I go through the process. Feel free at any time to respond to these, though if you prefer you can also wait until I finish reviewing and address everything at once.
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Initial comments: No copyvio issues and sources are clearly cited through the article. Images exist, are properly captioned, are relevant and useful to the subject of the article. Article contents is stable. The article is lengthy (prosesize 8348 words/34 kB @ 1170317206), but I didn't spot glaring concerns with respect to its broadness and focus; specific improvements here can be addressed in detailed review. Prose looks generally solid; improvements to ensure the article is accessible to a general audience can again go in detailed review. There's an independent criticism section, which can be a neutrality issue, but again in first pass nothing stands out as a serious issue and we can address any problems in detailed criticism. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 21:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Source Review
Unfortunately, however, ordinary linguistic usage often obscures the form of an argument. To dispel this obscurity, logic introduces various simplifying procedures.and
Th us, when we say that the logical operators may be used to translate expressions in ordinary language, we mean that the operators capture a certain aspect of their correlative English expressions.. From Baumgartner and Lampert:
None of the representatives of the traditional picture claim to offer sets of rules that would be severally necessary and jointly sufficient to resolve controversial mappings of logical formulae to statements. Rather, by reconstructing the theoretical underpinnings of the usual practice, they attempt to develop informal guidelines that shall help to clarify controversial formalizations. I think this is also an example of a place where the EB reference can be dropped without incident; the other sources seem more than sufficient to validate.
And, as we suggested, it is equally clear that we cannot make use of the criterion that might come as the most natural one...the agreement of truth conditions.
There are subtleties to our ordinary claims that far outstrip their mere truth values. Sarcasm; poetry; snide implicature; emphasis; these are important parts of everyday discourse, but none of this is retained in TFL.and
But TFL just is totally unequipped to deal with meaning..
I'm highly satisfied with this spot check; as I noted in the above, it may be the case that sometimes more sources are cited than needed to make a claim, but it does not appear to ever be the case that citation is insufficient to validate. Full pass on GA criteria 2.
Overall Comments: Overall the article is in a great state. Sourcing is thorough, reliable for the claims being made, and does not consist of original research. I am satisfied that the appropriately focused on the topic and broad enough to cover everything of interest, especially with improvements to the "basic concepts" section. Things are well written, clear to the reader, have an appropriate balance between technical depth and general accessibility, and free of major grammatical or spelling errors (I did some minor fixes here as I found them; feel free to double check).
On hold — I'd like to see the criticism section address how widespread the concerns raised are and what they mean for the actual practice of logic translation (e.g. looking at sources it seems like these are generally acknowledged limitations but not arguments against doing any formalizations). I'd also like to see usages of phrasing like "some theorists" expanded if possible to clarify how widely accepted the positions being argued are. Otherwise everything looks good and I see no reason not to list. Let me know when you're done addressing the comments here and I'll be happy to finalize this!
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
21:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Passed — Article meets all GA criteria and outstanding concerns have been addressed. Listing.
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
15:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This article does not mention semantic parsing. Is this essentially the same as logic translation, since it consists of translating statements from a natural language into a logical form? Jarble ( talk) 23:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)