Talk:Case analysis

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Philosophy: Logic

This disambiguation page 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Merge proposal

It was suggested that this article be merged with proof by exhaustion, but it was not decided that it should not be. See the discussion one the proof by exhaustion talk page. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Charles Matthews 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical statement

Shouldn't the second 'or' symbol given in the PL formula in this article actually be an 'and' symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.82.38 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to disambiguation

Most of the article is an unsourced description of proof by cases, with some WP:SYN sprinkled in. The remainder is better suited to a disambiguation page, or possibly a set index article. Paradoctor (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor:. Hello, sorry for reverting you, but as I've explained in the comments, the proposed dab page is not really a good one. And we're nearing month end, which will make the dab page show up on the dabs to fix list, encouraging editors to frantically try to fix the dab links, no matter what. Keeping it off there would give us some more time to think about what needs to be done here. I believe the topic would be better served by some kind of broad concept article. --Midas02 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Midas02: "sorry for reverting you" No sweat. As long as it is accompanied by informative edit comments or leads to constructive discussion, I'm perfectly happy with being reverted. ;)

"explained in the comments" I'm afraid the edit comment merely makes a claim, as an explanation it doesn't really work for me.

"encouraging editors to frantically try to fix the dab links, no matter what" That is an issue with user behavior, not a determinant of article content.

"give us some more time" No problem, I can wait a week.

"broad concept article" I don't see how that would be possible. "Case analysis" is used with several quite distinct meanings:

proof by cases is a way of constructing formal proofs, often used as a heuristic when trying to find an unknown proof
best, worst and average case is an approach to classifying algorithms
case study is a research tool
case method is a pedagogical tool related to learning by doing

How these are subsumed under one concept of "case analysis" is beyond me. Please note also that the page has identified as being unsourced since August 2009. It's high time to resolve that, IMO.

No need to ping me in your reply, I watch where I edit. Should I keep pinging you? Paradoctor (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]