Talk:Syntax (logic)

message: In spite of the names, those redirects have nothing to do with this article or concept.  I don't think they should exist at all, but apparently the misnamed concepts have been merged, so something is necessary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem.  We need a cite, other than the Metalogic book which disagrees with everyone else on notation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already been through this issue. You thought "metalogic" was a neologism which, given the history is quite off. I think this is just an area of logic which you do not have a great deal of experience. That's not to say you don't know a lot, but I honestly think you've hit a blind spot here. I have seen these terms used in many sources in mathematical logic. You should really slow down before re-acting to my edits. Arthur. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I now think that although it is a neologism, it's accepted in some philosophy departments, but never in a mathematics or mathematical logic context.  I'm willing to propose merger of the articles and categories unless you can provide a distinction.  But that's beside the point.  Even if the terms named in the section heading are accepted, the name here (Syntax (logic)) does not include them.  It's the difference between formal system and formal language, which you fail to note.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words you agree with me that it is accepted terminology. I don't think merging so as to remove content is acceptable. If you mean to merge the content, then that is a good faith proposal. Otherwise I think you and others are very keen to abuse the rules to get what you want. You apparently want to delete material that is notable, and of interest to philosophers which is not respectful. I hope you don't take this as a cue to escalate, but rather to consider a good faith suggestion from myself.  Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again.  If it's accepted terminology, it doesn't belong with this article, but with Syntax (philosophy).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Syntactic completeness]] and [[Syntactic consequence]] 

message: The diagram in :File:Formal languages.png is  unsourced in this copy (it's claimed to be sourced to Godel, Escher, Bach in other instances), is inappropriate in this article, and is not entirely accurate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram

message: In trying to understand syntax from the perspective of logic, I've so far had difficulty in understanding the introductory definitions--particularly the following: "syntax is anything [...] without regard to any interpretation or meaning given to them" & "The symbols, [etc., ...] whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any."
In my current perspective, were "no regard to any interpretation or meaning" to be placed upon some otherwise cognized given, it would at minimum be a real possibility that the given would not be in any way cognized. Here using the letter/symbol A as example, it was intended to be used to convey meaning; this itself imparts "A" with some degree of meaning (which can be interpretable by those who so intended). To then analyze "A" without any interpretation or meaning (either regarding what was intended by it or, else, in reference to not oneself placing any meaning upon it) seems to me equivalent to not holding any comprehension that it is a symbol of any sort, instead ultimately viewing it as a random piece of meaningless information. 
I'm either nitpicking or completely not grasping what "syntax" can potentially signify to experts within realms of formal logic. My guess is the former. If so, the phrasing could be changed to something along the lines of "the means (symbolic, propositional, etc.) by which meaning is, or can become, conveyed". (Not being studied in formal logic, though, I don't feel qualified to attempt such changes.) Nichesque (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "meaningless" intended to mean?  

message: The definition of negation completeness says "for each formula A of the language of the system either A or ¬A is a theorem of S".  I think that should be "for each closed formula A" or "for each sentence A". 31.52.253.220 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negation completeness