This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnotherPseudonym (talk | contribs) at 07:45, 31 May 2013 (→p→q is logically equivalent to …). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:45, 31 May 2013 by AnotherPseudonym (talk | contribs) (→p→q is logically equivalent to …)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority | ||||||||||
|
Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Second hatnote
The 2012 discussion about this matter did not reveal a single instance where material implication (rule of inference) is called “material conditional” or by some other name which redirects here, or may be mistyped in a way which gets a reader to this article. At least, I do not see there any concrete direction. The edit was anything else than an attempt to circumvent the due process. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Confusing
At present the lead section does not define "material conditional". Furthermore, it assumes some understanding of formal logic, but never actually positions "material conditional" within the study of logic. More detail, more basic explanation, and a definition of the concept would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've reworked the lead to try and make it clearer and more informative. I omitted the distinction between material implication and logical implication from the lead because it wasn't clearly explained and the introduction of that distinction in the lead seemed excessive and confusing. I've tried to describe the meaning of the operator in a clear manner and I've also pointed out a common confusion of beginners to formal logic in relation to that operator. I've also added two citations and extended the segment that listed logical equivalents. Your feedback would be most welcome. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
p→q is logically equivalent to …
“Reworking” undone. I will revert on sight any edits which injects a knowledge like
“ | in propositional calculus p→q is logically equivalent to … | ” |
(whatever a college student can derive from laws of Boolean logic), because a propositional calculus is not necessarily classical/Boolean. There is no such thing as the propositional calculus. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've reverted your revert. There may be so such thing as the propositional calculus, but removing Boolean propositional calculus form the lead would be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I take your point but I think that is rather heavy handed. You could just qualify what you identified as too general. Yes a college student can derive the equivalences but the point is to provide a concise description of the operator in the lead. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)