This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Syntax Logic is a Phenomenom which is used to translate program into Computer Language.
In spite of the names, those redirects have nothing to do with this article or concept. I don't think they should exist at all, but apparently the misnamed concepts have been merged, so something is necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move not done. No support except Greg Bard supporting his own nomination. Fences& Windows 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Syntax (logic) → Logical syntax — -- in order to be consistent with the category name of which this is the main article. Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Greg Bard 03:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of the references in this article are not visible in the text, and only in the reflist at the bottom of the page. The ref tags are present in the article, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eball ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The diagram in File:Formal languages.png is unsourced in this copy (it's claimed to be sourced to Godel, Escher, Bach in other instances), is inappropriate in this article, and is not entirely accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
In trying to understand syntax from the perspective of logic, I've so far had difficulty in understanding the introductory definitions--particularly the following: "syntax is anything [...] without regard to any interpretation or meaning given to them" & "The symbols, [etc., ...] whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any."
In my current perspective, were "no regard to any interpretation or meaning" to be placed upon some otherwise cognized given, it would at minimum be a real possibility that the given would not be in any way cognized. Here using the letter/symbol A as example, it was intended to be used to convey meaning; this itself imparts "A" with some degree of meaning (which can be interpretable by those who so intended). To then analyze "A" without any interpretation or meaning (either regarding what was intended by it or, else, in reference to not oneself placing any meaning upon it) seems to me equivalent to not holding any comprehension that it is a symbol of any sort, instead ultimately viewing it as a random piece of meaningless information.
I'm either nitpicking or completely not grasping what "syntax" can potentially signify to experts within realms of formal logic. My guess is the former. If so, the phrasing could be changed to something along the lines of "the means (symbolic, propositional, etc.) by which meaning is, or can become, conveyed". (Not being studied in formal logic, though, I don't feel qualified to attempt such changes.) Nichesque ( talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The definition of negation completeness says "for each formula A of the language of the system either A or ¬A is a theorem of S". I think that should be "for each closed formula A" or "for each sentence A". 31.52.253.220 ( talk) 11:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Syntax Logic is a Phenomenom which is used to translate program into Computer Language.
In spite of the names, those redirects have nothing to do with this article or concept. I don't think they should exist at all, but apparently the misnamed concepts have been merged, so something is necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move not done. No support except Greg Bard supporting his own nomination. Fences& Windows 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Syntax (logic) → Logical syntax — -- in order to be consistent with the category name of which this is the main article. Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Greg Bard 03:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of the references in this article are not visible in the text, and only in the reflist at the bottom of the page. The ref tags are present in the article, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eball ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The diagram in File:Formal languages.png is unsourced in this copy (it's claimed to be sourced to Godel, Escher, Bach in other instances), is inappropriate in this article, and is not entirely accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
In trying to understand syntax from the perspective of logic, I've so far had difficulty in understanding the introductory definitions--particularly the following: "syntax is anything [...] without regard to any interpretation or meaning given to them" & "The symbols, [etc., ...] whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any."
In my current perspective, were "no regard to any interpretation or meaning" to be placed upon some otherwise cognized given, it would at minimum be a real possibility that the given would not be in any way cognized. Here using the letter/symbol A as example, it was intended to be used to convey meaning; this itself imparts "A" with some degree of meaning (which can be interpretable by those who so intended). To then analyze "A" without any interpretation or meaning (either regarding what was intended by it or, else, in reference to not oneself placing any meaning upon it) seems to me equivalent to not holding any comprehension that it is a symbol of any sort, instead ultimately viewing it as a random piece of meaningless information.
I'm either nitpicking or completely not grasping what "syntax" can potentially signify to experts within realms of formal logic. My guess is the former. If so, the phrasing could be changed to something along the lines of "the means (symbolic, propositional, etc.) by which meaning is, or can become, conveyed". (Not being studied in formal logic, though, I don't feel qualified to attempt such changes.) Nichesque ( talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The definition of negation completeness says "for each formula A of the language of the system either A or ¬A is a theorem of S". I think that should be "for each closed formula A" or "for each sentence A". 31.52.253.220 ( talk) 11:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)