User talk:Chalst/archive-3

Don't just leave a message here if you care about getting a response in the next week or ten. Use the E-mail this user link in the toolbox to the left. If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond on your talk page. If you left me a message here, I will respond on my talk page. Click: leave me a new message, and maybe send me an email to tell me about your message

Archives:

• User talk:Chalst/archive-1: From start (11 Aug 2004) to 28 Feb 2005
• User talk:Chalst/archive-2: From 15 Mar 2005 to 28 Jan 2007

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on

]

Hello

Thanks for your message. A prof emailed me saying she was willing to help. I'm up for a bit of work on this, if you're willing.edward (buckner) 09:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. Welcome back ;-) You've been missed. Paul August ☎ 14:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chalst,I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you can speak German, let me know I am trying to get the FA de.wiki Cauchy article integrated into our rather weak en.wiki edition

I notice you signed up as an early proponent for the creation of WikiProject Logic. Since then, the proposed project has been moved to it's own space and you have been listed as a Charter Member. Thank you for paving the way for the creation of this project. This is an invitation for your continued and perhaps renewed participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 05:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the mathematical articles in Wikipedia are assertions that almost all of Western mathematics was anticipated in India. For example, in the logic article:

"While many cultures have employed intricate systems of reasoning and math, logic as an explicit analysis of the methods of reasoning received sustained development originally only in three places: India in the 6th century BC, China in the 5th century BC, and Greece between the 4th century BC and the 1st century BC."

These assertions are seldom referenced. Examination of the evidence shows that scholars disagree about the dates of these discoveries, and that the range of dates suggested by various sources is sometimes more than a thousand years.

I certainly don't want to be Eurocentric, but fighting these battles on a case by case basis is time consuming. I wonder if the mathematics project can help. Rick Norwood 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Indian mathematics is excellent. Rick Norwood 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this may seem a bit strange, and I am sure you are quite busy, but can I make a personal request for you to help edit the

page? Just in case you were wandering - no, you don't know me; but I too am concerned with the quality of the wikipedia philosophy and logic articles, and this one, whilst being one of the most important, is (in my opinion) currently one of the worst, or at least the worst written. I am trying to find people who at least to profess to know what they are talking about to help contribute. Unfortunately this is difficult, especially on articles related to philosophy.

Thanks for your time,

Wireless99 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a welcoming committee (especially since I haven't been very active for quite a while) but it is nice to see sane people around (oops, does that statement, by implication, violate some policy?) Welcome back. --CSTAR 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a postgraduate at the University of St Andrews, currently undergoing my MLitt coursework. My primary interests are in logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language, and analytic philosophy. I hope to do my PhD in some area of logic or philosophy of maths. I am very interested in Wikipedia as a whole, and more recently have added myself to the list of contributors in WikiProject Philosophy (perhaps I will also do others). Your interests seem very similar to mine, and I am keen to know more about you or discuss things with you. Hit up my talk page some time. Heelan Coo 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks for putting my name to

]

Greetings Charles, Sorry it's been so long in responding. The history is quite a long story (that's why it has been so long in responding. I have been thinking about it.) You must have not logged on for a while at the time it all started. I saw your proposal, and I was intrigued. I was still pretty new to wp, so I puttered around with some things at first. I created the

WP:MATH

.

At some point I created a category for Category:Logic stubs. The creation of it prompted a discussion about the relationship of logic and mathematical logic, etc. I hadn't realized that there was a process to go through to propose new stub types, but the category was allowed to continue. I had always wondered why the Logic project was still in the proposal stage at that point, so I asked what the process was to start one. Well it turns out there isn't one!

I was only beginning to realize the politics around here at that stage. I was looking at the article on theorem, and was so disappointed at the entirely mathematical treatment of the subject. I learned in the course of those editing discussions how it is around here. Those WP:MATH people basically have a swarm of regulars who are quite hypercritical and narrow at times. They have nothing better to do than babysit articles so it looks the way they want. Ordinarily I would be fully grateful for such interest by legitimate academics, and such intelligent folks. However, the math-centric pov here overwhelms the logic field of articles.

...any way... I dutifully set up

WP:Logic

as an independent project. Things went on as usual for the most part. however, in determining which articles would be in, and which would not we had a problem. And in setting up various details of the project there were problems. The math people wanted to keep their stubs separate. They wanted to keep their "Pages needing attention" separate. They wanted to keep the "Requested articles" separate. They basically made it impossible to have a unified project while I was setting it up that way.

The issues came to a head over a proposal to have a bot tag all the talk pages of articles in relevant categories with the Logic banner. This would have made hundreds of edits quite simple, and if there were any problems, clean up would still be easier than manual tagging. Well the categories which were proposed to be tagged were advertised as such for over a three weeks without comment or objection. When the bot started tagging, the Math people came out of the woods howling about what is and is not math or logic, etc. It was a mess. We spent the next three months trying to get a set of categories we agreed on.

It was then that I turned in my frustration to working on

WP:PHILO

. Wouldn't you know it! The people working in that area are easy going, helpful, nice, decent, etcetera. They are a pleasure to work with! Well, I realized that I could basically say screw the math people. Logic belongs under philosophy. They gave me no grief over organizing it AT ALL.

I took this opportunity to really develop

Anarchism task force

was created because they wanted to join as well!

To be clear, attitude is not the only reason things turned out the way they have. Logic really does in my view belong as solidly under philosophy. I have gotten substantial criticism for my Neo-logicistic views here, but nonetheless. For the purposes of organizing an encyclopedia, logical concepts are more general than mathematical ones. We should organize the content from general to specific so as to avoid prejudicing the reader toward certain interpretations. That is exactly what we do in logic as well. See Talk:Theorem.

Other reasons I decided to organize it this way are A) I see it as a way to counter the math-centric lean of these articles by making them more accessible to the philosophy crowd and B) the trend in Wikiprojects these days is to

task-force-ize

. This way we have a substantial project's resources helping smaller one's in related subject matter. I hope this move has caused many more philosophical logicians to have access to a greater variety of logic related topics including the mathematical ones. (Whereas those math guys are separatists: they don't want to see any darn philosophy if they can help it -Philistines).

I recently asked

WP:MATH

to merely designate the logic task force as a joint task force, but they couldn't see fit do do that apparently. Shortly before I did that, I set up the Wikiproject so that there are two worklists created by the two different banners (Phil/logic) and (Maths/Foundations):

• Mathematical logic worklist
• Philosophical logic worklist

I realize that it is your wish that the project stand on it's own, and be separate from philosophy (and perhaps math too). This had resulted in duplicate tagging of many articles leading to a clutter on talk pages. However, do not despair! I think there is a way to work it out so that it will be one in the future. We need to tell the script that makes the banner to put particular articles in two rather than one category. One for phil logic, and one for just logic; or one for math logic and one for just logic. This way there will be created a unified list, even if there still are two separate ones. I have not been motivated to change this just yet. Separatism is status quo right now.

The most recent turn of events for me, was the arrival of Geoffrey Hunter's Metalogic in the mail. I have created Category:Metalogic, and have populated it with several articles that I either created or to which I contributed. The math folks have been having a fit over the whole thing. They see it as some kind of threat to their way of seeing things.

Anyway, there are more details to the story, but this is a long one already. Thank you for founding wikiproject logic. It has been somewhat frustrating at times for me, but still certainly a positive contribution. I invite your correspondence. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you have a substantial interest and understanding of Philosophy and are a major contributor of this area. Hence I request your assistance to make this article as a featured article. Users,

]

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 09:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, Chalst. There must be other CE-Lmates on Wikipedia besides the two of us. I'm lying low for a while, as I seem to have irritated other Wiki folks and have been awarded the dreaded SPA label. Sigh.

KOKEdit (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chalst,

You say, "it is a category error to say that negation operates on proofs -- it is a propositional connective, not a proof construction", which is unusual given the famous "propositions = proofs" interpretation--e.g. see Martin-Lof Intuitionistic Type Theory. (In this case propositions may be (in some sense) identified with e.g. canonical proofs, or sets of proofs (including non-canonical ones). In any case, it's quite standard affair to speak of negation as a construction itself, viz. one which takes proofs of some type to proofs of some other type. The constructivist literature generally often identifies propositional operations with constructions, or else with inference rules (as in inferentialism) or equivalently functions.

By the way, I think 'does not hold' is less contentious (constructively) than 'is false', since the latter term is often associated with a realism, truth and falsity being something objective and agent-independent. In any case, I think the edit was fine, albeit unnecessary, though I find the edit reason a bit odd. Nortexoid (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good to chat again. As usual, we disagree about everything!

Martin-Löf's type theory identifies propositions with the type of proofs of that proposition, but not the propositions with either particular proofs or sets of proofs. Types are criteria for constructibility, not sets of terms; this matters, since, say, both "0=1" and "ZFC set theory is consistent" have no proofs in any reasonable constructive theory we have, but it would be metamathematically very bad to identify the two propositions; their significance is quite different.

I suppose I agree that "does not hold" is less contentious than "is false", but that is because it is weaker: PEM does not hold in intuitionistic logic, but it is not false, and indeed adding its negation to intuitionistic logic will be greeted with inconsistency. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they say it's better to disagree than to not talk at all!

Here is a quote from Martin-Lof (p. 13): "If we take seriously the idea that a proposition is defined by laying down how its canonical proofs are formed...and accept that a set is defined by prescribing how canonical elements are formed, then it is clear that it would only lead to unnecessary duplication to keep the notions of proposition and set (and associated notions of proof of a proposition and element of a set) apart. Instead we simply identify them, that is, treat them as one and the same notion. This is the formulae-as-types (propositions-as-sets) interpretation on which intuitionistic type theory is based." Of course the elements of propositions according to the propositions-as-sets interpretation just are proofs. And propositional operations are operations on sets. In the case of negation, it is a construction which takes proofs of one type (set) to another.

On your other point, there is a difference between identifying the propositions associated with two formulae and identifying the meanings (or verifiability conditions) of those two formulae. We might identify the propositions they "express" while not identifying their meanings. (This is a departure from how Frege used 'proposition' by which he meant 'Thought' (or sense) and by its reference 'truth-value'.) See e.g. Martin-Lof, On the meaning of the logical constants and the justifications of the logical laws on just this point. Nortexoid (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The set theory of Martin-Löf you cite is a subtheory of his intensional type theory. I'd draw the line between set theory and type theory exactly along the property of extensionality: while one can have set theories based on type theories like Aczel's CZF, the set theory disguises the intensional engine that powers it. I've taken Martin-Löf's demarcation between set and prop to be a rhetorical one, and indeed one I used in my doctoral dissertation, but one that should not be taken as repudiating the traditional distinction between set theory and type theory.

If we don't identify propositions with proofs, sets of proofs, or types of proofs —I generally try to avoid asserting such identities myself— what happens to the objection you made to my edit?

To return to the point, while ML type theory does have a type constructor that can be thought of as a meta-function taking each proposition to its negation, there is no matching function taking the proofs of the source proposition to proofs of the negated proposition. Negation just isn't an operation on proofs, that is the category error I claimed. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript Checkout Crosilla's SEP article Set Theory: Constructive and Intuitionistic ZF, which has a discussion of some constructive set theories without extensionality. There's room for argument as to whether these set theories are really set theories: shall we adopt our customary roles of disagreement over this matter? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, with deadlines I've been too busy to respond. Excuses, excuses. In any case, we certainly disagree, but I hope it is not about what I think it's about. Just digging through some stuff today on an unrelated matter I came across the following.

• "The intended meaning of intuitionistic logic is given by the BHK semantics which formally defines intuitionistic truth as provability and specifies the intuitionistic connectives as operations on proofs". [Artemov, "Explicit provability: the intended semantics for intuitionistic and modal logic", 1998].
• "The Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation explains the meaning of logical operations as operators that construct proofs from proofs of the operands." [Sato, "Classical Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation", 1997].

Of course there's all kinds of this stuff--it is the standard interpretation of the intuitionistic connectives, so it's puzzling that you object. Are you objecting to whether or not it's a typical interpretation of the connectives, or that it's a correct one? A quick glance at the literature is proof enough of the former, so I suppose you are objecting on the latter grounds. But as this is an encyclopedia, one might think that what is standard should be preferred to what is disagreed with by particular editors (you!). (All of this being said in a very friendly tone, which may not be clear from the text alone. I'm in a rush, as usual.) Nortexoid (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have an objection to what is generally taken to be the BHK interpretation, it is that it is not an interpretation: it doesn't say what kind of constructions count. Presumably the notions from ZFC are not acceptable, say, but it is quite intelligible to apply BHK to interpret the language of HA in this way, giving you a theory quite unlike other constructivist theories, one that has some resemblance to a forcing model. BHK is a template for interpretations, some of which may be acceptable to constructivists.

I take Heyting (1956) to be the canonical statement of the BHK schema. As Atten (The development of intuitionistic logic, 2008) makes clear, Heyting (1956) defines the meaning of the logical connectives in terms of assertion conditions, where the criteria for assertability is given in terms of constructibility of proof witnesses. This means that logical connectives are not operators on proofs, but operators on provability criteria.

When Artemov says BHK semantics ... specifies the intuitionistic connectives as operations on proofs, this is not true of Heyting (1956), although as Atten's excellent article says, earlier writings on formal interpretation of intuitionistic logic are more problematic, and maybe Artemov has a reference for this wording. When he says BHK semantics ... formally defines intuitionistic truth as provability he is right, modulo the nuances between provability and assertability.

The quote of Sato is underspecified: what are logical operations? Are they logical connectives? They might be intended to be what is to logical connectives as proofs are to propositions.

And friendliness be damned! These quotes were very interesting for me to read, and I would enjoy your messages as much if they were obviously malicious in intent. Please feel free to post messages, regardless of how short in time you are or how grouchy you are feeling. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your name on the Computer Science project page. I have been looking over recent article changes and came across this edit [1] to Batch file. To my uneducated eyes this edit appears to have no relevance to an article main space. If you could take a look and either revert or (if you think it's necessary) contact the editor that made the edit I would appreciate it. If you need to contact me, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I hope I'm not making a big deal over nothing....accept my apology in advance if this turns out to be a waste of time. Thanks. Tiderolls 05:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like bona fide output from some CLI, though I am pretty unfamiliar with Windows. To include the whole thing is clear vandalism, and has already been reverted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer volume was the aspect that was giving me pause. I'm always careful reverting additions that are technically above my head...and there was almost zero talk page activity. Thanks for your time and effort. Tiderolls 12:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply moved to User talk:Physis#Imre Ruzsa

Dear Chalst,

Thank You very much Your reassuring words. Excuse me for that I had not replied at once. That time I was unsure yet whether I can write the article. Since then, I checked a book in library about his life, but unsuccessfully. For luck, I found some online Hungarian resources instead. I have not yet a clear image in my mind about the whole article, till then, I am experimenting on the subpage.

Best wishes and thanks for the reassuring,

Physis (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a reasonable inference from that account that Gödel did explain his loophole to Morgenstern? I lean to yes, since he says there were several discussions about it, and that Morgenstern says he said then that Gödel's loophole was unlikely to come about. But it is all written up, as you wrote, in a rather vague way.

I think you summarize it quite nicely. Morgenstern's dismissal might have been of the "It can't happen here, not in America" type, with him always cutting Gödel off before he stated his theory. But Morgenstern was not that impatient with Gödel. Apparently Gödel, who has an interest in economics, gave Morgenstern many insights useful in his work. I find it very hard to imagine that in each of "many" talks, Morgenstern never heard Gödel out on this matter.

On the other hand, someone trying to make the case that Gödel never explained his loophole to Morgenstern could point out that nothing from any reliable source suggests that Morgenstern or Einstein for a moment took Gödel's constitutional musings at all seriously. So I suppose it is possible they never heard him out on the matter. I can't think it likely, but it is possible.

My best stab-in-the-dark guess is that Gödel's loophole is based on whatever loophole the Nazis used as the post hoc legal rationalization for the Anschluss. This would have been a very big deal to Gödel. If Gödel saw any echo of this loophole in the US Constitution, he could easily have become obsessed with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreykegler (talk • contribs) 03:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference on this, but the version I heard of it was disappointingly simple: The constitution can be amended, and any protection contained in it can be removed by an amendment. (From my armchair understanding there's only one exception, which is that no state can be deprived, without its consent, of equal representation in the Senate.) --Trovatore (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeffreykegler & Trovatore. I guess that Jeffrey meant Hitler's overturning of the consitution, not Germany's takeover of Austria. The section Weimar Constitution#Hitler's subversion of the Weimar Constitution says a bit about this: I should think that the way Hitler's Enabling Act allowed him to make constitutional amendments by fiat would have worked Gödel into a lather. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this late, but I hope better late than never. No, I didn't mean the Weimar Constitution. I meant the justification of the Anschluss (the Nazi takeover of Austria) under Austrian consitutional law. (The term "Anscluss" may be unfortunate since it seems to embed the Nazi view of the event as a union of two states, rather than an annexation, but it is the established term for this event.) I say this because the Anschluss was one of the major traumatic events in Gödel's life. The only equals I can suggest would be the assassination of Schlick, and what seems to have been a street assault by a gang of Nazi youths on him and his wife. The Anschluss had more direct personal effect on Gödel than either.

I don't know German, so can't follow up on this, but there must have been some after-the-fact justification of the Anschluss as a union and not an annexation, and one prong of this justification would have had to be in terms of Austrian constitutional law. This justification may have gotten little attention. It may not have been taken seriously, even by its own authors. But Gödel would have taken it seriously. He would have latched onto it and analyzed it more thoroughly than the most serious professionals would have. And it would have been the foundation of any subsequent thinking Gödel did about constitutions.

As for other proposed explanations, my thought (perhaps feeling would be a more accurate term) is that if it is anything along the lines of what you'd expect, it's not a Gödel result. The other possible ideas that are proposed are too obvious, too expected, not stunning and therefore not the sort of thing Gödel himself would have been taken with. With the Morgenstern document, the real sign of authenticity was that it contained something that, even with careful preparation in the matter, I didn't expect. For speculation on the Gödel constitutional result to be credible to me, it has to surprise me. Nothing I've heard yet has. If Gödel's constitutional result was anything like the known paradoxes of self-amendment, I'd be both disappointed and surprised, if such a combination of emotions makes sense.

Apologies for the long and long-belated response. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While your edits to the Logic page are likely an improvement, I think it can be done better. From the perspective of an insider, giving the many insightful and interesting definitions of logic from important philosophers might be good and well, but, in my humble opinion, it is not what a beginner going to the logic page would most like to encounter. There has to be some sort of way to characterize logic without confusion, that is also concise, accurate, and will be informative for someone not accustomed to the discipline. JEN9841 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to the following: Logic, from the Greek λογική (logiké)[1] is defined by the Penguin Encyclopedia as "The formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning"[2], and added the other definitions to footnote [2]. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bad definition because by using the term "valid" it restricts logic to only deductive reasoning. There has to be a better way. I think I will start a discussion on the talk page of logic sometime soon. JEN9841 (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Peircean epistemology (Charles Sanders Peirce), which I guess is the most dominant form these days, asserts the existence valid, non-deductive inferences. The footnote makes clear (I think) that the article is not asserting any particular definition is authoritative. We need something in the lede as a base point, and this is much less partisan than the first paragraph I originally replaced. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfiability and validity are elementary concepts of model theory.

The above is not a suitable opening sentence for a Wikipedia article. It doesn't tell the lay reader that it's not about sociology of fashion models, nor about chemistry, nor about economics, etc. I've changed it to this:

In mathematical logic, satisfiability and validity are elementary concepts of model theory.

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, thanks. I'll pay attention to this in future. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles - thank you for your kind words on the RfA talk page. The remarks above about the Logic article reminds me of this attempt to reorganise the article, beginning with a high level description of what logic is. We foundered on the atttempt to get the article to cover both aspects of logic, traditional and modern predicate logic. MPL is a very wide and difficult subject to get into a few sections, I think. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I intend to incorporate much of Peter's old draft into the Logic article. It's a good attempt to explain logic in a balanced way, and the current article doesn't really explain the content of logic. No idea how long I will take to actually do this.

I saw that you wrote most of the Stoic logic section on the History of logic, which I am grateful to see, since I have had difficulty in tracking down decent sources for this topic. I note that there is a dramatic difference between the role Chrysippus plays in Stoic logic in Susanne Bobzien's SEP article, Ancient Logic, and on your account. Is this an accident, or is there some issue over how to handle him? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I relied heavily on Kneale & Kneale for that part, which is somewhat out of date. Perhaps this should be revisited, but remember SEP treat subjects in far more detail than is appropriate for a purview of the history of logic. Peter Damian (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm planning to start the article when I feel more comfortable with the literature, because their ideas seem pretty cogent to a number of modern questions in the semantics of logic.

I should really own Kneal&Kneale. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.

Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the article which is looking a bit sad. I always confuse the principle with the law of excluded middle. The medieval writers said "de quolibet dicitur affirmatio vel negatio vera' following Aristotle (De interpr. I c. 9 18a 29-30), but this is something different again. 'Either the affirmation of any proposition or its negation is true' is subtly different from 'any proposition is either true or false'. The idea that excluded middle is a syntactic expresion of the law is probably a modern idea. In the article Law of excluded middle there appears to be a confusion between the law, and the principle of bivalence. Just some thoughts - I need to look up the history. Peter Damian (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I checked in

]

Yes. The crucial point is that when one asserts a disjunction "A or B", the semantics only commits one to denying that both arms can be false together. Usual bivalent semantics says that evidence for "A or B" consists either of evidence for A or for B. Non-bivalent semantics can say that one knows that there is a relationship between the two propositions that means that the disjunction must be true, without their being sufficient basis for asserting one or the other. These kinds of semantics are more complex than the usual sort, and they often have a somewhat dialectical flavour.

The problems with the article are more my fault than anyone else's. The question was pretty central to my doctoral thesis, and that seems to have given me little appetite to do a proper job of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research.

1. The semantical expression is a separate question I think, since we can also give a semantic expression of bivalence "it is true that p or it is false that p" for example.
2. If 'it is false that p' is equivalent to 'not p' then LEM and POB are equivalent (Kneale & Kneale specifically note this).
3. If there is a third truth value, e.g. "indef p" (p is indeterminately the case, then they are not equivalent. For example, if p is indeterminately the case, then 'not p' is true, but p is not false.
4. Some more work needed on the origin of POB. I looked in all my 19C books and there is no reference to it, so I suspect it originated in the Lukasiewicz period. Most of the earlier formulations are of LEM, although there is clearly some confusion with POB.
5. Ueberweg has a good chapter on the history of the principle, including many of the Latin formulations. However I still cannot find the origin of 'tertium non datur'. It is definitely not a medieval phrase. Suspect it is of German origin.

I will keep looking for more sources. An interesting question. Peter Damian (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Betti, 2001, [http://segr-did2.fmag.unict.it/~polphil/PolPhil/Lukas/LukasBival.pdf The Incomplete Story of Łukasiewicz

and Bivalence]? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't, it's very interesting, and should go in. You might also be interested in my short discussion here. Peter Damian (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a list of sources here. I still can't find who coined the term 'Principle of bivalence'. Peter Damian (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. I had not had time to reply to your last comment in the Harizanov AfD discussion. The discussion was closed recently with a keep, which I think is generally fair. Anyways, you said that James Munkres is very worthy of inclusion, but the 856 cites Google Scholar gives his "Topology: a first course" may not be a good indication of passing

]

Thanks Eric, for bringing this here. I'm sorry that I was unclear with my reason for raising that text: Mukres, like Woodin, is in the class of highly accomplished mathematician who must satisfy PROF#1: if they didn't then it is PROF#1 that should be ditched. The reason I chose that text is that I don't regard it as an achievement from the POV of introducing new ideas into algebraic topology. The point is that this stands as a counterexample to the claim that the number of scholarly citations constitutes evidence of the degree of influence of the original ideas in the text. Texts often attract citations for other reasons. I should maybe put together a WP ESSAY on the use and abuse of citations in establishing the notability of scholars and texts. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your concerns at this FAC. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...It doesn't belong in Index of logic articles because...? --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not topic-neutral: it is heuristics to improve problem-solving skills, not, say, "The science of the most general laws of truth". Lateral thinking fits only antiquated definitions of logic, not generally accepted today; cf.

Definitions of logic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Now you're being a illogical. It's a logic topic, the article is about a method of logic; Logic is problem solving, by your argument Venn Diagram should be removed too since that's just a tool used for problem solving, it's not even a style. ...And on that page you linked to supposedly prove your point, it says right in the opening paragraph that what can be defined as "logic" is often a controversial thing. You're being small-minded and not behaving in an NPOV way. --I′d※♥※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- I think someone ought to make a new page on biscuit conditionals. I would have added it to the logic task force "to do" list, but I wanted your approval because I'm not part of the logic task force. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerner (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Go ahead. I'd like to see more articles on logic's frontier with linguistics. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there; take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to talk PamD: I don't reply to subst'd templates. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick bit of followup: if you copy something to your sandbox, please remove any speedy tags - someone just criticised me for apparently tagging the article in your sandbox which of course I didn't do! Thanks. PamD (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Khalid Duran nationality??? --نسر برلين (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes —not someone I consider an impeccable source, but here I think he is reliable— wrote in the Jerusalem Post: Durán, 61, is an accomplished scholar and original thinker. Born of a Spanish mother and a Moroccan father, he speaks five languages and was educated in Spain, Germany, Bosnia, and Pakistan. A German citizen, he has lived in the United States since 1986, teaching and writing mostly about Islam at leading universities and think tanks. (Khalid Durán) An American Rushdie?. So German national, may be on the road to US citizenship. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some years of gestation, this article is now largely finished. I am thinking of taking it to FA but would like some thoughts from people first, as I have heard such bad things about this process. It should go there one day, the history of logic is one of the top 50 articles that should be in an encyclopedia. I welcome any thoughts.

]

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to

WP:AN

with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of

who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project".

]

Imre Ruzsa

Dear Chalst,

Sorry for that I noticed Your message here just now. (Even now, only becasue I got a personal message on my user page).

In generally, I have great problems with interpreting the inner worlds of humans since childhood, this may be either a part of my

(maybe, not sure). In generally, I was very afraid of writing the article, because I could not feel and balance the values and aspects it desired. I tried to give historical and orthographic background at least, but further, I did not dare to accomplish the task: I stuck in, panicked, and did not watch the article's talkpage either.

Just now I saw that my former mathematics professor has agreed with You meanwhile, Moreover, he has written an article about the number theorist Imre Z. Ruzsa, who differs from the deceased logician Imre Ruzsa, he is a living number theorist with (almost) the same name (I think Kiefer Wolfowitz has thought on him).

Sorry for the nuisance, and thank You for the reassurement and attention,

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Charles Stewart. It's been awhile. I was wondering if you could explain what you were getting at by your last comment here: Talk:Modal_logic#Logically_necessary_example. I liked your points earlier in the conversation but missed this one until now. --Heyitspeter (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Dorothy Edgington - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Any chance you could take a look at this ? I have replaced contradict tag with expert needed but as you commented I thought I would give you a heads up.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction has been happily living in the article for nearly two years, but it's been evicted now. The arty's still a mess, but not a contradictory mess. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that, and the very speedy eviction!

It was one of the old articles on the Wikipedia:Contribution_Team/Backlogs that needed cleaning out :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is logic empirical? until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Logic in Islamic philosophy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic in Islamic philosophy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Logic task has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

logic

Looking good. I have a few suggestions, more later, but thanks for your work there. Peter Damian (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to be in touch again! — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantification. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]