Talk:Logical matrix

Still needs disambiguation

It is unfortunate that this article was not moved or disambiguated, as there is still no article about logical matrices in the sense of matrix semantics, despite articles on related topics in logic linking here mistakenly. The content here should be about {0-1}-matrices in general with a section about their interpretation as matrices of truth values and should have the title Binary matrices. The title Logical matrix should be used for an article about logical matrices in the sense of matrix semantics. See my sandbox for an early draft of such an article. Thefringthing (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to matrix (protocol)? Start your user page so we can read your draft. The "semantics" article could be developed. Rgdboer (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not. I am referring to logical matrices, a class of objects studied in logic. I think you can see my sandbox despite my non-existent userpage; try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thefringthing/sandbox. Thefringthing (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Your draft does not cite sources. Though it mentions the four-valued logic of Belnap and three valued logics by Priest, Kleene, and Bochvar, the latter are not referenced. Thank you for your interest in improving this article, but your draft does not qualify for inclusion. Rgdboer (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That draft is not at all complete. I meant only to illustrate what an article with the title "Logical matrix" should actually be about, rather than {0,1}-matrices. Your suggestion that I read WP:NOR does not qualify for my consideration. Thefringthing (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes & Queries

Jon Awbrey 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

RM

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The discussion is interesting, but a 2:1 numerical majority in favor of the move should be treated at no consensus, due to lack of turnout. The participants have a lot of knowledge which is not yet reflected in the article. More references could surely be added. If that were done, it might be reasonable to rerun this debate at a future time. The opening sentence offers a multitude of alternative names for this concept, and these cry out for references that provide examples. If this concept is handled differently in different domains (logic, math, computer science) references could be given for that fact. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Logical matrix → Boolean matrix or Binary matrix — It's less ambiguous that way. The ref cited in this article, the Handbook of Linear Algebra calls them 'binary matrices'. So I don't think the above merge was in the right direction to begin with. There are refs calling the notion described here a Boolean matrix [1] [2] [3]. Granted Boolean-valued can mean over arbitrary BAs in general, but I've not really seen 'Boolean matrix' used that way. (Just like Boolean function overwhelmingly is used to mean over {0, 1} as well) In contrast, logical matrix has a definition in logic that is even more unrelated to the definition given in this article (thanks to the misnomer that Tarski and Lukasiewicz brought upon us [4] [5] [6]), i.e. matrix semantics, so "logical matrix" should probably become a DAB at some point. I'm ok to have it redirect here in the mean time. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity. I also don't see a move as necessary. Cliff (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this article defining an algebra? Is that the same as a matrix to you? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is describing what a logical matrix is, and how they can be used. One of the ways it can be used is to define an algebra. Moving it to boolean matrix doesn't address your question. A boolean matrix is a matrix, as is a binary matrix. Cliff (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Try searching for logical matrix or logical matrices in google books. Let me know what you find. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Some books. your point? Cliff (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read how they define the notion? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I still don't see your problem. Cliff (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to Boolean matrix. This is part of a wider issue, the hijacking of mathematical terms by computer scientists (;-> but seriously, folks, look at Boolean variable. Data type? Don't logicians and mathematicians use the term too? The primary meaning of variable IMO is in mathematics (and I speak as a logician!) but note that we have variable as a DAB, which is a good compromise. Trouble is, the web in general and Wikipedia in particular is very rich in computer science enthusiasts. Calling this article logical... is probably a throwback to the heyday of Fortran when Boolean data types were commonly defined as logical, they still are in some contexts but it's far less common, in fact logical... makes little sense these days in any field. Binary matrix would be better then logical... but Boolean is both the correct and the most common name. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that moving to Boolean Matrix is another of those instances of computer language hijacking mathematics. I'd also like a source that supports your supposition that boolean is the "correct" and also most common. Cliff (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought they were obvious enough observations that providing evidence was a waste of everyone's time, but always happy to investigate if it helps, see User:Andrewa/creed the fifth last clause I believe in verifiability.... Try Google web search [7] and pick almost any paper to establish that the name is correct, [8] (PDF, 256 KB) for example doesn't even bother to define the term, few papers would any more than they would define the number six, see boolean. I expect scholar and books will give similar results. The question now is, is it the correct term? This will be harder to answer, so I'll instead appeal to WP:AT: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous... (my emphasis). Logical matrix is ambiguous, meaning also a matrix (in the general, not mathematical, sense) used in a system of logic, for example semantic tableau. Most common is going to be more difficult still, I'm thinking how to best measure that with the tools available... Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have asked before, do you want evidence that logical... in this context is a poor title, or just that Boolean... is superior to binary...? These are two separate issues. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

computer language hijacking mathematics... I don't see that at all. Most of us with an interest in maths and/or logic have some interest in computing these days, but not conversely. Boole died in 1864, so while he's (rightly) reverred by computer people I don't think many of them think he worked in computing. Some (;-> do, and there's a perpetual bunfight over whether the term Boolean logic has a primary meaning in the field of mathematics or of computing (it of course does have a primary meaning which is in neither of these fields, but we logicians don't see any logical reason to waste time on such issues when we have so many better issues on which to waste our time). Andrewa (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Andrewa, I'm not sure what you purport to be showing with your links. Try google web search [9] to see that logical matrix is also a correct term. What you mean by "correct" I cannot be sure since the subject can be defined under different names. In fact, the term that seems to be used in MATLAB is logical matrix. If you can show me how logical matrix has a different meaning than binary matrix or boolean matrix then I will help you split the terms and create a new article for the one that is incorrect, but the information I am finding does not support your statements, and I don't see any necessary reason for the suggested move. Cliff (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

By the correct in this context I mean just that it's the right choice both in terms both of WP:AT and of WP:IAR. Agree that the others are also correct in the weaker sense. Let me try another tack: The purpose of the article title is to get people to the article they want, and Boolean will do this best. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Boolean matrix or ...

I recommend reopening the move issue. The current title is overly specialized. In fact, it seems to me that the title, content, and emphasis of this page are narrow and ahistorical. The topic of Boolean or (0,1) matrices is essentially combinatorics with relevance to computer science; this page is written from a relatively esoteric viewpoint with inadequate knowledge of the math/CS material. For an instance of inadequate knowledge, I had to remove the false statement that specifying row and column sums gives a block design, and replace it by the missing reference to the fundamental Gale-Ryser theorem which solves the problem of possible sum vectors. Zaslav (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction: The title Boolean matrix, though often used for this, has been taken by something more general. "Binary matrix" or "(0,1)-matrix" seem reasonable to me. Zaslav (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)