Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formulation (logic)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formulation (logic)

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no sources Paradoctor (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREDO yields 80+ uses in relevant reference works, but not a single definition. Paradoctor (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This term has no special meaning in mathematical logic (e.g. in the type of logic covered by the Handbook of mathematical logic). If someone did use the term, I would read it either as "form" or as "formalization", depending on context. I do not know if there is some other context where "formulation" has a technical meaning that this article could discuss. — Carl (
CBM · talk) 13:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, but without prejudice. Thinking about the history of the article and of semantics, that concept is not used, but there is a related concept in the semantics of a formal language, in which two different well-formed formulas could have identical meanings. The selection of the string associated with the meaning could reasonably be called a "Formulation". But we'd still need a reliable source for the name of the concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That is what I would call a "formalization". It's relatively common for the same natural-language sentence to have different formalizations, particularly in constructive mathematics where things that are classically equivalent are no longer constructively equivalent. But "formulation" is not a term of art in that setting. — Carl (
  CBM · talk) 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arthur Rubin 65.46.253.42 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.