Talk:Conjunction elimination

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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Suggest to rename to "Conjunction elimination"

To my knowledge, the rule the article is about is usually called "conjunction elimination", or "and elimination";^[1] I have never seen it called "simplification". The article had no references at all before 4 Mar 2012, when Gregbard gave at least three slovenly ones, which remained unimproved up to now. So since it's pretty impossible to verify the use of "simplification", that name shouldn't be claimed in the article, and the title should be renamed. After all, "simplification" is a rather general term which is "occupied" here without any verifiable source. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ David A. Duffy (1991). Principles of Automated Theorem Proving. New York: Wiley. Sect.3.1.2.1, p.46

Agreed. A quick Google Books search shows that, in logic, "simplification" by itself may mean conjunction elimination, but in a broader context, it means many other things, for example in computer algebra. Even within logic, there are other important simplifications, e.g., A or AB = A, so Simplification (logic) is still too broad. This page should be moved to Conjunction elimination. --Macrakis (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and move Simplification (disambiguation) to baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done D.Lazard (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] David A. Duffy (1991). Principles of Automated Theorem Proving. New York: Wiley. Sect.3.1.2.1, p.46

[1]