This is the archived discussion of the talk page of a redirected page |
What the hell is the difference between Logical implication and the Material conditional ????? I propose a merge. Fresheneesz 07:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
A logical implication is a valid material implication (or material conditional). These are two different but often confused notions. The pages should remain separate, but the page on logical implication needs to be updated so as to reflect this distinction. 128.112.210.248 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The introduction of the article had been changed to read:
I found this introduction confusing, since it looks like discussion of the article rather than an introduction to the article. So I replaced the introduction with an earlier version. The above introduction is probably salvageable if it is modified to stop talking about what shouldn't be confused and start talking about what is to be understood. Michael Slone ( talk) 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
They are exactly the same concept, so why are there two distinct pages for them? This one is actually quite poorly written. I like the introduction though. Just kidding, I wrote it. This page should be scrapped (except for the great intro.) and redirected to Entailment. Is anybody going to make a stink about it if I do it? Nortexoid 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a lot was changed, but it would be appreciated it somebody qualified in disagreement reverted the article and gave good reasons for doing so. I notice that you ask what the difference between logical implication and the material conditional is at the top of the page. I feel your revert was unwarranted, simply because the article in its current state is awful. E.g., what exactly is the relevance of the Symbolization section, or for that matter the following section on Comparison with other conditional statements? What is all that talk of the Cond(x,y) function for? Nortexoid 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote this: p → q ≡ p ∧ q ∨ ¬p ∧ ¬q ∨ p ∧ ¬q
It helped me understand the implied operator. Might it help improve the article, if someone could perhaps help me get it out of unicode into that fancy formulae format that wikipedia uses? -- Nerd42 ( talk) 03:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Logical implication can be confusing without a simple explanation of the concept that it is supposed to formalise. The exisiting article is difficult even for some experienced specialists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication
Logical implication can be used in many professions. Uses include:
Currently there are several pages for the same thing, and confusion amongst the authors. This suggests that the fundamental concept of logical implication is not properly understood. Here are some comments from the 'talk' page:
"What the hell is the difference between Logical implication and the Material conditional ????? I propose a merge."
"... both pages are a mess"
"... interwiki links are a mess here"
"... The above introduction is probably salvageable if it is modified to stop talking about what shouldn't be confused and start talking about what is to be understood"
I added a simple explanation of 'logical implication' to the 'Logical implication' page. I think that logical implication has a real world origin, although this may not be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMortimer ( talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Please see Talk:Entailment#Duplication of content. - dcljr ( talk) 19:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from logical implication was copied or moved into Entailment with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Note this article was merged into entailment by consensus - see Talk:Entailment#Merger proposal
In accordance with merge procedures this page has been cleared and redirects to Entailment — Philogos ( talk) 02:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC).
This is the archived discussion of the talk page of a redirected page |
What the hell is the difference between Logical implication and the Material conditional ????? I propose a merge. Fresheneesz 07:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
A logical implication is a valid material implication (or material conditional). These are two different but often confused notions. The pages should remain separate, but the page on logical implication needs to be updated so as to reflect this distinction. 128.112.210.248 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The introduction of the article had been changed to read:
I found this introduction confusing, since it looks like discussion of the article rather than an introduction to the article. So I replaced the introduction with an earlier version. The above introduction is probably salvageable if it is modified to stop talking about what shouldn't be confused and start talking about what is to be understood. Michael Slone ( talk) 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
They are exactly the same concept, so why are there two distinct pages for them? This one is actually quite poorly written. I like the introduction though. Just kidding, I wrote it. This page should be scrapped (except for the great intro.) and redirected to Entailment. Is anybody going to make a stink about it if I do it? Nortexoid 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a lot was changed, but it would be appreciated it somebody qualified in disagreement reverted the article and gave good reasons for doing so. I notice that you ask what the difference between logical implication and the material conditional is at the top of the page. I feel your revert was unwarranted, simply because the article in its current state is awful. E.g., what exactly is the relevance of the Symbolization section, or for that matter the following section on Comparison with other conditional statements? What is all that talk of the Cond(x,y) function for? Nortexoid 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote this: p → q ≡ p ∧ q ∨ ¬p ∧ ¬q ∨ p ∧ ¬q
It helped me understand the implied operator. Might it help improve the article, if someone could perhaps help me get it out of unicode into that fancy formulae format that wikipedia uses? -- Nerd42 ( talk) 03:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Logical implication can be confusing without a simple explanation of the concept that it is supposed to formalise. The exisiting article is difficult even for some experienced specialists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication
Logical implication can be used in many professions. Uses include:
Currently there are several pages for the same thing, and confusion amongst the authors. This suggests that the fundamental concept of logical implication is not properly understood. Here are some comments from the 'talk' page:
"What the hell is the difference between Logical implication and the Material conditional ????? I propose a merge."
"... both pages are a mess"
"... interwiki links are a mess here"
"... The above introduction is probably salvageable if it is modified to stop talking about what shouldn't be confused and start talking about what is to be understood"
I added a simple explanation of 'logical implication' to the 'Logical implication' page. I think that logical implication has a real world origin, although this may not be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMortimer ( talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Please see Talk:Entailment#Duplication of content. - dcljr ( talk) 19:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from logical implication was copied or moved into Entailment with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Note this article was merged into entailment by consensus - see Talk:Entailment#Merger proposal
In accordance with merge procedures this page has been cleared and redirects to Entailment — Philogos ( talk) 02:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC).