This page was proposed for deletion by Crisperdue ( talk · contribs) on 27 April 2023. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tautology (rule of inference) 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems extremly unlikely to be the most common usage of "Tautology" as a "rule of inference", or even as a "rule of replacement". The common rule is that if is an (already established) tautology (logic), then A can be replaced by B. Furthermore, if you (collectively) can use Hurley, I should be able to use Rubin, Jean E. (1990). Mathematical Logic: Applications and Theory. Saunders College Publishing. ISBN 0-03-012-808-0., which calls these rules idempotency rules. I should add that her tautology (rule of inference) is closer to a tautology (rhetoric); if is a tautology (logic), then is a rule.
This is clearly the wrong name for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen (Arthur and Greg) and anyone else involved with this article, instead of fighting over trifles, please tell us who this article is for. I have a Ph.D. in social sciences (granted, not in philosophy, but nonetheless), have published 3 books and I do not understand a single word of this article.
I can read 99.99% of articles on the topics of fields as variegated as astronomy, pharmacology, philosophy, history, biology, sociology, behavioural sciences, linguistics, jurisprudence, warfare... you name it -- without any problem. So I consdier myself educated above the average. Not the smartest or anything, but a person who can read most text (and not only in English) with comprehension.
Here I went back 3 times and couldn't get the head or tail of it -- in the article itslef, even less so in your discussion. So, please ask yourselves who this article is for. This is wikiPEDIA, not a very narrowly focused academic journal.
Anyway...
This page was proposed for deletion by Crisperdue ( talk · contribs) on 27 April 2023. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tautology (rule of inference) 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems extremly unlikely to be the most common usage of "Tautology" as a "rule of inference", or even as a "rule of replacement". The common rule is that if is an (already established) tautology (logic), then A can be replaced by B. Furthermore, if you (collectively) can use Hurley, I should be able to use Rubin, Jean E. (1990). Mathematical Logic: Applications and Theory. Saunders College Publishing. ISBN 0-03-012-808-0., which calls these rules idempotency rules. I should add that her tautology (rule of inference) is closer to a tautology (rhetoric); if is a tautology (logic), then is a rule.
This is clearly the wrong name for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen (Arthur and Greg) and anyone else involved with this article, instead of fighting over trifles, please tell us who this article is for. I have a Ph.D. in social sciences (granted, not in philosophy, but nonetheless), have published 3 books and I do not understand a single word of this article.
I can read 99.99% of articles on the topics of fields as variegated as astronomy, pharmacology, philosophy, history, biology, sociology, behavioural sciences, linguistics, jurisprudence, warfare... you name it -- without any problem. So I consdier myself educated above the average. Not the smartest or anything, but a person who can read most text (and not only in English) with comprehension.
Here I went back 3 times and couldn't get the head or tail of it -- in the article itslef, even less so in your discussion. So, please ask yourselves who this article is for. This is wikiPEDIA, not a very narrowly focused academic journal.
Anyway...