Talk:Logical consequence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This sentence should be entirely singular or entirely plural[edit]

The third sentence in the opening paragraph seems to be using the singular "its" to refer back to the plural "arguments" or "ones." A decision needs to be made by whoever wrote the paragraph or by a knowledgeable editor as to which the sentence should be: either entirely singular or entirely plural. Here are examples: "A valid logical argument is one in which its conclusions follow from its premises, and its conclusions are consequences of its premises"; or "A valid logical argument is one in which its conclusion follows from its premises, and its conclusion is a consequence of its premises"; or "Valid logical arguments are ones in which their conclusions follow from their premises, and their conclusions are consequences of their premises"; or perhaps merely "Valid logical arguments are ones in which conclusions follow from [their] premises, and conclusions are consequences of [their] premises." (I personally would prefer the second example which has a single conclusion following from multiple premises, such as in the famous: "All men are mortal; Einstein is a man; therefore, Einstein is mortal." But the writer should make the choice, not me.) Wikifan2744 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Thus"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Thus is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Merged Entailment (pragmatics) to here[edit]

The page had no sources and was incomplete and a stub. "Entailment" already redirects here. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced this was a good idea. Of course, the two topics have a common fundamental idea behind them, but the two articles were in were in two different fields of knowledge (natural language semantics/pragmatics vs. formal logic) and I'm not sure I see how the two approaches can be reconciled within a single article. As for the other article being an unreferenced stub, an obvious remedy is to expand it with sources. – Uanfala (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. Reverted. More investigation is required. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logical consequence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)