User talk:EricBright

Welcome!

Hello, EricBright, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Images

I have deleted Image:Propositional Logic.png as you requested but bear in mind that all that means is that I have removed a db tag. The image is on the Commons and you must go over there to request the image itself be removed.

I do not like to see different articles or images on titles which would be identical if threated case-insensitively. But actual deletion of Image:Propositional Logic.png will solve that problem.

I strongly disapprove of this image (either version) - it is totally anti-colaborative. It should be rendered as a normal Wiki table. As well as allowing others to contribute, it is more flexible allowing for different formatting depending on the browser and window size in use. I am sure the Wiki <math> function (which I believe is just LaTex) is fully capable of handling the formula. Please consider re-doing as a table. -- RHaworth 10:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redoing the table

Dear RHaworth,

Thank you for your warm welcome. I am considering redoing the 'propositional logic' table using Wiki table. I do it as soon as I figured its how-to out. It would look like the following table:

Common name	Secuent	Description
Basic argument forms of the calculus
Modus Ponens	$[(p\supset q)\wedge p]\supset q$	if p then q; p; therefore q
Modus Ponens	[(p ⊃ q) ∧ p] ⊃ q	if p then q; p; therefore q
Modus Ponens	[(p → q) ∧ p] ⊢ q	if p then q; p; therefore q
Modus Tollens	[(p → q) ∧ ¬q] ⊢ ¬q	if p then q; not q; therefore not p
Hypothetical Syllogism	[(p → q) ∧ (q → r)] ⊢ (p → r)	if p then q; if q then r; therefore, if p then r
Disjunctive Syllogism	(p ∨ q), ¬p ⊢ q	Either p or q; not p; therefore, q
Constructive Dilemma	(p → q) ∧ (r → s), (p ∨ r) ⊢ (q ∨ s)	If p then q; and if r then s; but either p or r; therefore either q or s
Destructive Dilemma	(p → q) ∧ (r → s), (¬q ∨ ¬s) ⊢ (¬p ∨ ¬r)	If p then q; and if r then s; but either not q or not s; therefore rather not p or not r
Simplification	(p ∧ q) ⊢ p	p and q are true; therefore p is true
Conjunction	p, q ⊢ (p ∧ q)	p and q are true separately; therefore they are true conjointly
Addition	p ⊢ (p ∨ q)	p is true; therefore the disjunction (p or q) is true
Composition	(p → q) ⊢	If p then q; and if p then r; therefore if p is true then q and r are true
De Morgan's Theorem (1)	¬(p ∧ q) ⊢ (¬p ∨ ¬ q)	The negation of (p and q) is equiv. to (not p or not q)
De Morgan's Theorem (2)	¬(p ∨ q) ⊢ (¬p ∧ ¬ q)	The negation of (p or q) is equiv. to (not p and not q)
Commutation (1)	(p ∨ q) ⊢ (q ∨ p)	(p or q) is equiv. to (q or p
Commutation (2)	(p ∧ q) ⊢ (q ∧ p)	(p and q) is equiv. to (q and p)
Association (1)	[p ∨ (q ∨ r)] ⊢ [(p ∨ q) ∨ r]	p or (q or r) is equiv. to (p or q) or r
Association (2)	[p ∧ (q ∧ r)] ⊢ [(p ∧ q) ∧ r]	p and (q and r) is equiv. to (p and q) and
Distribution (1)	[p ∧ (q ∨ r)] ⊢ [(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r]	p and (q or r) is equiv. to (p and q) or (p and (p or r)
Distribution (2)	[p ∨ (q ∧ r)] ⊢ [(p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r]	p or (q and r) is equiv. to (p or q) and (p or r)
Double Negation	p ⊢ ¬¬p	p is equivalent to the negation of not p
Transposition	(p → q) ⊢ (¬q → ¬p)	If p then q is equiv. to if not q then not p
Material Implication	(p → q) ⊢ (¬p ∨ q)	If p then q is equiv. to either not p or q
Material Equivalence (1)	(p :⇔ q) ⊢ [(p → q) ∨ (q → p)	(p is equiv. to q) means, either (if p is true then q is true) or (if q is true then p is true)
Material Equivalence (2)	(p :⇔ q) ⊢ [(p ∧ q) ∨ (¬q ∧ ¬p)	(p is equiv. to q) means, either (p and q are true) or ( both p and q are false)
Exportation	[(p ∧ q) → r] ⊢ [p → (q → r)]	from (if p and q are true then r is true) we can prove (if q is true then r is true, if p is true)
Importation	[p → (q → r)] ⊢ [(p ∧ q) → r]
Tautology	p :⇔ (p ∨ p)	p is true is equiv. to p is true or p is true

Eric 02:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I have redone the first line using <math> as described in meta:Help:Formula - and it does not look as good. I have redone it again using ⊃ ⊃ - see the ISO 8859-1 list. &equiv; ≡ is another you need. -- RHaworth 15:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

→ is closer to what we use in...

Dear RHaworth,

Thanks for your encouragement. I revised the table and I think this symbol ⊃ that usually means 'proper superset of...' is not exactly what we mean by → in 'propositional logic'; we rather use → for what we call 'if...then...'. However, some people use ⊃ in their writings for 'if...then...'. In that case, it becomes confusing when it comes to the Axiomatic propositional logic, where we use both ⊃ and → with the aforementioned meanings. Therefore, if you agree, I keep the arrow '→' untouched.

We also use turnstile, ⊢, to convey something like the following:

p ∨ q, p → r, q → s, ¬s ⊢ r

and we read this methalinguistic claim like:

There is a proof of the sentence on the right of the turnstile (r) from the ensemble of sentences on the left of it (p ∨ q, p → r, q → s, ¬s). Then, turnstile is not metalinguistically equal to 'if...then...'.

However we can prove:

⊢ Σ → A

from:

Σ ⊢ A

using the axiomatic logic. Such a thing is called The Deduction Theorem [DT] that says:

For any set Σ ⊆ Φ, and for any wffs α, β ∈ Φ, if Σ ∪ {α} ⊢ β, then Σ ⊢ α → β.

By the way, ≡ is exactly what I wanted. I substituted :⇔ with ≡. Now we have a more accurate table.

I also want to know if there is any way to refer to this table from inside of 'Deductive Logic' article (it uses the PNG format yet). Then we don't have to reproduce and edit the same table twice.

Eric 01:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Material equivalence

Material Equivalence (1)
- (p :⇔ q) ⊢ [(p → q) ∨ (q → p)]
- (p is equiv. to q) means, either (if p is true then q is true) or (if q is true then p is true)

There is an error on material equivalence, both conditions are necessary to make p equivalent to q, so the simbol AND is mistaken by simbol OR.

image: (p is equiv. to q) means, either (if p is true then q is true) or (if q is true then p is true)
- $(p\equiv q)\equiv [(p\rightarrow q)\lor (q\rightarrow p)]$
correct: (p is equiv. to q) means, (if p is true then q is true) and (if q is true then p is true)
- $(p\equiv q)\equiv [(p\rightarrow q)\land (q\rightarrow p)]$

Image Propositional_logic.png has the same error.

external link

I substituted the png picture with an editable table. Thank you for letting me know. Eric 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie. Thank you for reaching out. As I could tell from the comparison table, JASP was on the table while it is not as polished and as complete as jamovi.

You should have contacted me first before reversing all of the edits. Not only you versed my insertion of jamovi (which now has a long Lynda.com tutorial as well as a few full-length books written about it), but also inadvertently reverted my updates for other software unrelated to jamovi.

Would you please correct the updates for other software besides jamovi while we are discussing jamovi in here? Thanks.

I will look into your linked guideline to see what I need to do in this circumstance. As of this moment, I believe we simply must re-create the jamovi page on Wikipedia, since I think the previous assessment of the package are no longer valid.

Eric Bright (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link to the course on Lynda.com:

https://www.lynda.com/jamovi-tutorials/Introduction-jamovi/5016725-2.html

These are some books on jamovi:

https://vorpress.com/
http://www.hakjisa.co.kr/subpage.html?page=book_book_info&bidx=4308
learning statistics with jamovi https://www.learnstatswithjamovi.com/

Eric Bright (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A UBC article using jamovi:

Psychometrics & Post-Data Analysis: A Software Implementation for Binary Logistic Regression in Jamovi

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0380439

Another article using jamovi for analysis:

mbir: Magnitude-Based Inferences

https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00746

Eric Bright (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert any other changes you made, which you can verify by looking at the diff. As to your sources, they'll get reviewed by whoever looks at your draft article. Take a look at WP:RS to see what is generally acceptable. In your place I would leave out the tutorials, self published ones (such as the BA thesis), and the trivial mentions (such as the mbir piece). This draft will probably be looked at a little more closely than most, because some overzealous person has repeatedly recreated a badly sourced Jamovi article, which has lead to a lock against recreation that will have to be overriden by an administrator. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better be safe than sorry, I guess. A poorly written article about any topic might cause more confusions that it might clear up. Well, someone will hopefully look into the matter a bit more closes in the future.

I updated Orange and ROOT (and another one if I recall correctly) to their latest versions of which all but one was reverted the last time I checked (I'll check that out again).

Again, thanks for the follow up.

Eric Bright (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]