Talk:Categorical proposition

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Meaningful Labels Please[edit]

Resolved

Can somebody give the reason why the names of the categories are AEIO? I mean, the page seems to suggest that AEIO stands for "All", "does not Exist", "Intersect" and "some exist Outside of" Is that even remotely correct? If arbitrary labels are given, then what is the point in learning AEIO? Why not ABCD? Please do give labels that are explained. Burning.flamer (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article now includes this information with a source. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Distribution of terms[edit]

The Distribution section in this article better explains the concept. Maybe we can put the table in the other article in this article. Yeom0609 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged them. Yeom0609 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I and O Forms[edit]

To comment on the O form, saying Some S is not P or Not every S is P, one could see that Not every S is P is the same as Not all..., which is the same as Some (an undefined number, 1 or more, but less then all). Therefore, Not every... is the same as Some is... not. Could one with "Peter Geach and others" works explain how changing the English in the form change the meaning? This seems more like made-up equivocation.

Steven Perszyk —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implication[edit]

If others think it necessary, I could explain (Using information from Gordon H. Clark's book Logic) implication. As in, which categorical forms imply each other. For example, in 1st figure arguments, A(S,P) implies I(S,P). Now for 2nd figure arguments, E(S,P) implies E(P,S). I have a comprehensive list of these in table-form. All this information can be backed with Mr. Clark's Logic book

Steven Perszyk —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"is" vs "are"[edit]

User:Crito10 back in 2017 changed most of the article (starting with this change) so that "is" is used instead of "are", e.g., "All S is P" instead of "All S are P". Why? This seems grammatically incorrect to me. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't see a basis for restriction to the singular. Antillarum (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]