This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Logical assertion page were merged into Judgment (mathematical logic) on 7 May 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Am confused. Is this the sort of topic that Bertrand Russell and Willard Quine devoted much attention to -- i.e. the nature of an assertion as an "objective truth" i.e. observable by others? Lemme know, thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge yet for such overview. Till then, word "judgment" is for me just a comprehensive concept of the many ways the various deduction systems use a strange auxiliary concept in their foundation. I used it yet only as a syntactic construct, which is part of the foundation of the big machinery of a deduction sytem.
What is the difference between and , if any? I do not know.
I regard the difference analogous to another question: What is the difference between
they "say the same", but somehow seem for me to be used differently. A metatheorem is a full-citizen part of the metatheory. A rule of inference, together with all metasigns (space between premises, line between sequence of premises and conclusion), is something auxiliary thing for establishing the foundation of the deduction system.
Thus, unfortunately my knowledge is far from enabling me grasping the semantics of these notions, I just used them separately as syntactic auxiliary constructs.
Physis ( talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear
Wvbailey,
I tried to find sources which discuss these questions.Till now, I found Pfenning, Frank (2004 Spring). "Natural Deduction". 15-815 Automated Theorem Proving. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) It seems to fit here, but I shall have to read through it thoroughly yet. I shall check Kneale & Kneale The Development of Logic, and Curry Combinatory Logic in such questions tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Physis ( talk) 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank You for making me interested in the ontology of the concept "judgment", transcending regarding it only on a technical level. I have found also
I hope it addresses such questions. I have just found it, I have not read it through yet. It seems to introduce a lot of new things for me: proposition and judgment are different concepts; a proposition can be true, a judgment can be evident. Best wishes, Physis ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear
Wvbailey,
As I said, I know nothing about the ontology of the concept "judgment". Maybe, my argumentation above is entirely erranous. There is a thread on Talk:Hilbert-style deduction system#Concept of “judgment” as a more characteristic difference among various deduction systems, the answers I received there to my questions may ellucidate the problem better than the above thoughts of mine.
Best wishes,
Physis ( talk) 12:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the explanation of "judgment" as clear as mud. Not one single sentence on the page makes sense to me. I have been seeing this word "judgment" in the logic pages for the last week, and nowhere is it clear what is supposed to mean, especially on the "judgment" page itself.
Is "judgment/judgement" a synonym for "assertion"? Guessing by all the contexts in which I have seen it on wikipedia, I would say that the answer is almost certainly "yes". If so, I think the authors of these web pages should stop obfuscating and use plain English. Every mathematician and every reasonably well educated person knows what an "assertion" is. I have not seen the word "judgment" in any of my 45 mathematical logic books. Nor have I seen it in any of the other 173 mathematics books on my bookshelf. The only place I have ever seen it is on wikipedia. I think that if wikipedia is supposed to explain things to people who are not already specialist experts in each topic, then surely the comprehensible word "assertion" should be used instead of the incomprehensible word "judgment".
The first paragraph of the "judgment" article lists a few things that a "can be", and none of these "can be" options is comprehensible to me. The second paragraph muddies the waters even further. The 3rd and 4th paragraphs are just way off the end of the obfuscation meter.
If there is some subtle or not-subtle difference between "judgment" and "assertion", then surely the page on "judgment" should clarify this. My guess is that the difference is purely of interest to certain sections of the philosophical community. It certainly has no interest for mathematicians, in my opinion. Kantian splitting of hairs in the undertones of words is not really what mathematicians are into, in my opinion. And outside the mathematical community, I think most people will be even more perplexed by "judgment", especially after they have read this wikipedia page on the subject!! If even mathematicians will find this page incomprehensible, what hope does anyone else have?
Suggested actions:
-- Alan U. Kennington ( talk) 07:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
As raised above, judgment is indeed a synonym for assertion (see Martin-Löf citation). Further, the content at logical assertion is essentially a special case of the content of this article. Hence I propose logical assertion be merged into Judgment (mathematical logic) article. Quiddital ( talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The current article contains this text:
which is clear-as-mud and/or wrong. I suspect the parenthesis is mis-placed. I suspect it should be
If I try to read the former, with the bad paren placement, I start with which can be readily recognized as a tautology: from nothing at all, from thin air, I can prove that p is true. Since its a tautology, p is always true. So this reduces to , which is blatently wrong, unless x is restricted to be a member of the set of even natural numbers. For example, x must not belong to the set of quadruped furry animals, because is not even well-defined for furry animals.
The second form with re-arranged parenthesis, makes slightly more sense, but is still ill-defined. There, the reading starts with , so that p is now some proposition, might be true, might be false, who knows, but whenever p is true, then if follows that . Presumably, it works out that whenever p is true, then x is even.
Oh, hang on. It also says: ''For example, if p = "x is even",... and so perhaps this is meant to be the definition of what p is? In that case, simple substitution works. That is, perform the substitution aka . The first formula gives
which is insane because is not a tautology. The second form gives
which obviously is a tautology, and totally acceptable. So I'm editing the article to correct what seems to be an obvious error.
67.198.37.16 (
talk) 15:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Logical assertion page were merged into Judgment (mathematical logic) on 7 May 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Am confused. Is this the sort of topic that Bertrand Russell and Willard Quine devoted much attention to -- i.e. the nature of an assertion as an "objective truth" i.e. observable by others? Lemme know, thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge yet for such overview. Till then, word "judgment" is for me just a comprehensive concept of the many ways the various deduction systems use a strange auxiliary concept in their foundation. I used it yet only as a syntactic construct, which is part of the foundation of the big machinery of a deduction sytem.
What is the difference between and , if any? I do not know.
I regard the difference analogous to another question: What is the difference between
they "say the same", but somehow seem for me to be used differently. A metatheorem is a full-citizen part of the metatheory. A rule of inference, together with all metasigns (space between premises, line between sequence of premises and conclusion), is something auxiliary thing for establishing the foundation of the deduction system.
Thus, unfortunately my knowledge is far from enabling me grasping the semantics of these notions, I just used them separately as syntactic auxiliary constructs.
Physis ( talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear
Wvbailey,
I tried to find sources which discuss these questions.Till now, I found Pfenning, Frank (2004 Spring). "Natural Deduction". 15-815 Automated Theorem Proving. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) It seems to fit here, but I shall have to read through it thoroughly yet. I shall check Kneale & Kneale The Development of Logic, and Curry Combinatory Logic in such questions tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Physis ( talk) 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank You for making me interested in the ontology of the concept "judgment", transcending regarding it only on a technical level. I have found also
I hope it addresses such questions. I have just found it, I have not read it through yet. It seems to introduce a lot of new things for me: proposition and judgment are different concepts; a proposition can be true, a judgment can be evident. Best wishes, Physis ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear
Wvbailey,
As I said, I know nothing about the ontology of the concept "judgment". Maybe, my argumentation above is entirely erranous. There is a thread on Talk:Hilbert-style deduction system#Concept of “judgment” as a more characteristic difference among various deduction systems, the answers I received there to my questions may ellucidate the problem better than the above thoughts of mine.
Best wishes,
Physis ( talk) 12:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the explanation of "judgment" as clear as mud. Not one single sentence on the page makes sense to me. I have been seeing this word "judgment" in the logic pages for the last week, and nowhere is it clear what is supposed to mean, especially on the "judgment" page itself.
Is "judgment/judgement" a synonym for "assertion"? Guessing by all the contexts in which I have seen it on wikipedia, I would say that the answer is almost certainly "yes". If so, I think the authors of these web pages should stop obfuscating and use plain English. Every mathematician and every reasonably well educated person knows what an "assertion" is. I have not seen the word "judgment" in any of my 45 mathematical logic books. Nor have I seen it in any of the other 173 mathematics books on my bookshelf. The only place I have ever seen it is on wikipedia. I think that if wikipedia is supposed to explain things to people who are not already specialist experts in each topic, then surely the comprehensible word "assertion" should be used instead of the incomprehensible word "judgment".
The first paragraph of the "judgment" article lists a few things that a "can be", and none of these "can be" options is comprehensible to me. The second paragraph muddies the waters even further. The 3rd and 4th paragraphs are just way off the end of the obfuscation meter.
If there is some subtle or not-subtle difference between "judgment" and "assertion", then surely the page on "judgment" should clarify this. My guess is that the difference is purely of interest to certain sections of the philosophical community. It certainly has no interest for mathematicians, in my opinion. Kantian splitting of hairs in the undertones of words is not really what mathematicians are into, in my opinion. And outside the mathematical community, I think most people will be even more perplexed by "judgment", especially after they have read this wikipedia page on the subject!! If even mathematicians will find this page incomprehensible, what hope does anyone else have?
Suggested actions:
-- Alan U. Kennington ( talk) 07:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
As raised above, judgment is indeed a synonym for assertion (see Martin-Löf citation). Further, the content at logical assertion is essentially a special case of the content of this article. Hence I propose logical assertion be merged into Judgment (mathematical logic) article. Quiddital ( talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The current article contains this text:
which is clear-as-mud and/or wrong. I suspect the parenthesis is mis-placed. I suspect it should be
If I try to read the former, with the bad paren placement, I start with which can be readily recognized as a tautology: from nothing at all, from thin air, I can prove that p is true. Since its a tautology, p is always true. So this reduces to , which is blatently wrong, unless x is restricted to be a member of the set of even natural numbers. For example, x must not belong to the set of quadruped furry animals, because is not even well-defined for furry animals.
The second form with re-arranged parenthesis, makes slightly more sense, but is still ill-defined. There, the reading starts with , so that p is now some proposition, might be true, might be false, who knows, but whenever p is true, then if follows that . Presumably, it works out that whenever p is true, then x is even.
Oh, hang on. It also says: ''For example, if p = "x is even",... and so perhaps this is meant to be the definition of what p is? In that case, simple substitution works. That is, perform the substitution aka . The first formula gives
which is insane because is not a tautology. The second form gives
which obviously is a tautology, and totally acceptable. So I'm editing the article to correct what seems to be an obvious error.
67.198.37.16 (
talk) 15:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)