Talk:Lemma (logic)

Examples please!

merge lemma (math) with lemma (logic) articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Logic is math, and lemmas in logic are just the logic specific instances of mathematical lemmas. There is no reason to have two separate articles here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rblakem (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is looking for the meaning of "lemma" in logic but does not know that the logical meaning is derived from the mathematical meaning, then he or she would be better served by keeping this article separate from the maths article. Bmeacham (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge the articles. This one is useless. Roger (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the definitions. They are quite different. 180.200.145.20 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need clarifications for the general reader

"a lemma is simultaneously a contention for premises below it and a premise for a contention above it."

1. What do "below" and "above" mean? Do they mean "appearing after" and "appearing before," respectively, or "appearing before" and "appearing after," respectively?

2. The link embedded in "contention" now leads to the "Conclusion" wiki which makes no mention of contention. It seems to mean a point asserted for which one argues, or at any rate asserted as part of an argument. Does it have some special technical meaning here and, if so, what is it? The Tetrast (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]