Talk:Syllogism

message: There, cleaned it up a bit and wrote the stuff about majors and minors. Removed cleanup tag, but it still needs tender loving attention from a father-figure logician, the poor thing. I just don't know enough about the subject.
saturnight 22:53, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Note that Term logic and Talk:Term logic contain even more about syllogisms than this article does. Things need to be moved from there to here. I'd do it if I knew anything about syllogisms (which I don't at present).  — mark ✎ 15:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is a relatively important logical construct, and needs to be added as a link, along with the logical relationships of contraries, subalterns, subcontraries, and contradictions. I recently took a course in logic that was heavy into syllogism, and we used the square of opposition a lot.  Thought or feelings?  Is there a place within the article that would best describe and illucidate this concept, or am I really best just to put a link in the "see also" section?  Thanks.
Asday85 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for Something about [[Square of opposition]] 

message: Any relationship to "JISM"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.213.27 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of... can you be more clear? 129.93.16.77 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This piece is, pedantically speaking, wrong. 
:Men die. (general principle) 
:Socrates is a man. (specific statement)
:Socrates will die. (application of major to minor)
The correct conclusion would be "Socrates dies." The problem is that semantics and syntax are funnily linked, such that for semactic equivalence "will" has to be included in the conclusion. Solutions I can think of:
*men die -> men will die; probably wrong though
*Socrates will die -> Socrates dies; probably equally wrong semantically as the previous option
*die -> die some day
*die -> have finite lifespan
*men die -> Every human will die; Good and also makes the implied "every" which is needed for this to be valid reasoning, explicit.
Comments? --MarSch 12:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the next sentence in the article hints that the major used to be "All men are mortal", which is probably even better. I will reinstate this. --MarSch 12:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  men (will) die 

message: I added a good bit to the syllogisms page.  I thought it would be nice to have something more accessible than formal logic normally gets.  Comments and revisions are (of course) welcome. Twrigley 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made some additions 

message: I just searched the net, and found not a single explanation of why it's called the Barbara Syllogism.
Anyone here know? That definitely should be included in the article.Kaz 16:52, 
I used to work for Barbara Syllogism. Full of fallacies, that woman.
19 January 2006 (UTC)
:According to Bertrand Russell, it is an acronym from Greek. That ought to help you in your search. The book was in my high school library, so now you have an even short search list, meaning that it couldn't have been a very esoteric title by Russell, but one of his popularizations. --Ancheta Wis 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of a medieval mnemonic.  Each syllogism involves three propositions labelled "A", "E", "I" or "O", and so each syllogism is given a word that contains those three letters in order.  Hence the syllogism deriving an All conclusion from two All premises needs a word with three As as its first three vowels: Barbara was chosen, but it could have been calamari. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that explains why celarent was another of those mnemonics. --Ancheta Wis 18:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain about merging - I'm still trying to get a handle on the over-all structure of wikipedia, while Wittgenstein laughs at me from the back of my head (hierarchical knowledge structures; please!!!).  for a pro-tem solution, though, I'll add your explanatory link.  :-) Ted 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I came here looking for an explanation of the consonants in the mnemonic words for syllogisms, and apparently that text no longer exists on this page or Term logic.  I was able to get some information from historical versions of Term logic but it seems like it should be on an active page.  Gimmetrow 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY is it called the Barbara Syllogism? 

message: * JA: Could active editors put all but routine editorial comments and communications on the discussion page instead of enscouncing sotto voce asides in the article, as the latter are really hard to follow what's going on for interested bystanders watching the diff and hist displays.  Gratia in futuro, Jon Awbrey 18:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sure thing, sorry.  Ted 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive subtext 

message: We have now lost the whole of the original article on term logic - here is a recent version.
[]
At some point it was turned into a rambling essay, then got merged with syllogism, then SlimVirgin cut it down completely.  I agree some that some reduction was necessary, but now we have lost all the stuff on why there are two terms in the proposition, what terms are and so on.  Dbuckner 12:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be acceptable to revert to the term logic Revision as of 03:41, 20 January 2006 and disconnect from this article, for now? Anyone? --Ancheta Wis 13:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well not really, as Mel's rewrite of this article is quite good, and the old Term logic did overlap a lot.  I need to think of a way to bring in the material that was lost.  Dbuckner 13:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Twrigley, by all means start merging back some of the old version (in consultation with the other editors), but please don't delete Mel's additions, because they really are improvements. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with "Slim Virgin".  I wrote the article "Term Logic" some years ago when WP style was chattier.  Since then additions were made that were stylistically awful, and I'm happy to see it go in the dustbin.  Plus, Mel's rewrite is high quality stuff and we should keep it.  So, Ted, please be constructive about this.  Dbuckner 08:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's happened? 

message: this page has been reverted to it's state before this argument began.  please see my discussion with Mel Etitis on my talk page, here.  Mel, since you agree that the original version was superior to the version you found on your first edit, I suggest that we begin revisions (however extensive you would like those to be, beginning here.
I agree with your comments on wordiness, and while I disagree in strong terms with SlimVirgin's claims about personal essays, I'm willing to discuss the matter.  her actions, however, destroyed far too much new and worthwhile content to be considered appropriate.
shall we discuss a plan for revisions, or simply feel our way through the process?  as I said, I've had ongoing discussions with two other established editors of this page about changes, and there's no need for particular hurry in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrigley (talk • contribs) 
:Ted, your discussion with Mel on his talk page shows that he agrees some of the old version should be merged into this one, but not all of it, because as he said some of the old had POV problems and parts were written in an unencyclopedic style. Mel has said that once his busy period is over, he'll be able to start collaborating on transferring material from one version to the other. I think you should wait for him to do that, because you'll probably end up with a great article as a result. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted originally and just now, because SlimVirgin broke rules of civility and her administrator discretion by reverting an entire page she has never engaged in or had been asked to look at. She did this after a mediation case in which she was accused of breaking other rules and defining wikipedia arbcom cases against the wishes of Jimbo Wales. She refused the mediation. Ted got involved in that indirectly as the one who chose to mediate as he was on the Mediation Cabal as it is called. He was attacked by SlimVirgin for his decision done in fairness and honesty. SlimVirgin immediatly came here and reverted days! of edits. You arrived after this and put in hours. I appreciate your work Mel, and offered a suggestion you work with Ted from his original version which did need work. SlimVirgins explanations for reverting an entire work of material were not appropriate as I've shown above. She has failed to answer my legitimate questions. As a wikipedia editor I have every right to question anyone who acts in this manner. I expect answers from her abuse of Ted still. You have been hostile towards me, understandable if you thought I was directing the reversion against your edits...I was not. I actually approve of your edits, but I had to right a wrong when it came to Ted from SlimVirgin who was abusing her role here and continues to do so. My suggestion again, is to work together with Ted, the both of you could put together a wonderful and accurate article. I will continue to uphold his version and insist according to procedures here at wikipedia, that you show sentences you disagree with and show us here in the community your changes with citations, if you refuse to collaborate with Ted who has spent days on this before the unwarranted reversion. --Northmeister 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Northmeister, you're trolling, pure and simple, and have no knowledge of or interest in the subject matter, so please give it a rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, I am trying to defend someone who tried to help wikipedia out through mediation and who was 'punished' by yourself through reversion. Please answer my questions above. I have every right to discuss this article since your reversion, since that is the topic here, unneccessary reversion. You should of discussed why you wanted to revert before you reverted. You should know this, and the fact you have been around awhile, makes this doubly so. I want civility here. I request in all good faith that you stop 'harassing' Ted and allow this page alone to be edited by those who were working on it before your reversion. I remind you in this official manner: I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks., that reverting an entire page without prior notice or any Good Faith observations of Ted is wrong. You should know this. My interest in this page will end when the 'harassment' and abuse ends. It looks as if Ted left because of what you did, and what Mel has done since your reversion. I extend good faith to Mel, maybe he is an innocent bystander who decided to edit just at the wrong time, not sure, so he should understand that my reversion was done to fix a wrong, and work from the original article with Ted to improve it. We both (you and I SlimVirgin) should stay out of it. --Northmeister 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  None of this protracted ad hominem addresses the important question of the relative quality of Mel's work versus the quality of the work he replaced.  My judgment is that Mel's work is better (I have studied syllogistic and traditional logic for nearly thirty years).  By a long way (see my comments below).  I'm sorry if anyone has been offended or upset, but at the end of the day we are trying to write a quality encyclopedia, and the sections on logic and philosophy need all the quality they can attract.  So please: chill out.   Dbuckner 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree a quality article is the most important. Your statement below is incorrect. SlimVirgin reverted an entire article and Mel came in right after that. Mel's contributions are excellent, but the work of Twrigley was also well done. I've seen no real explanation that Twrigley's work on the article was wrong. The first standard of an encyclopedia is getting it right. The second is writing it straight. Everyone says Twrigley got it right, including SlimVirgin.  Even Mel acknowledged a better version that was interestingly Twrigley's.  The point then is to restore that better version by his own admittance and then include the changes Mel wishes to make. First we right the wrong done by SlimVirgin. Then we collectively replace any material that Mel has done better into the article to improve it.  Thus we have structure, fairness, and cohesion to the entire process. I restored Twrigley's version. Mel now may edit that original article that was vandalised with any better material.  Let's do this paragraph by paragraph as a starting remedy. The end results will clearify all disorder and restore vitality and accuracy to wikipedia and this article. Let us engage. --Northmeister 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions

message: Some more thoughts.  I've read again through the edit that "Ted" and "Northmeister" want to revert.  Their complaint is that a lot of material has been deleted by Mel's rewrite, which is true. 
Bit I would NOT want to lose Mel's rewrite, as this deals with the syllogism in a compact and efficient way.  He introduces the syllogism with a short definition, moreover in a way that defers to Aristotle in the medieval style.   Then he introduces the idea of major and minor premiss in an economical way, by the key concepts of major, minor, minor and middle term.  Nearly all you need to know about the syllogism is in the introductory paras, which is the essence of good writing.  So, well done Mel.  
However, the problem is that 'Traditional Logic' is a far wider area than just the syllogism, and the original article 'Term Logic', which was (cursory) attempt to deal with the wider subject, is now completely lost.  Can I therefore suggest that this issue is dealt with in the upcoming rewrite of all the logic pages, which Charles Stewart ((talk) ) (an accomplished logician) and myself (a not so accomplished logician, but I do have a detailed knowledge of the history of logic).  Rather than get into a protracted edit war, can I suggest that solution. 
I.e. in SUMMARY: keep Mel's rewrite, but work towards a proper organisation of the logic pages, and moreover work together without these protracted and silly arguments.  Yes?  Dbuckner 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking for the bystanders, thank you for your precis. Might we see a sketch of a roadmap for the logic pages at some time? That might even attract others to the pages. --Ancheta Wis 10:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Let us engage.  Paragraph by paragraph, Mel offer your rewording here for the community to consider both paragraphs and to work with yours and Twrigley's for accuracy and detail. Together much can be accomplished. --Northmeister 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the above two paragraphs, what within them needs changing to improve these two. Let us engage in discourse and improvement. --Northmeister 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact if any more of this nonsense goes on it will be me who leaves Wikipedia.  I've had enough of it.  Philosophy was bad enough.  My professional work involves drafting complex documents using teams of people.  To do this we hire people with proven ability by a complex system of exams and work experience.  This works.  The idea that you can do the same except without the qualifications is completely mad.  Wikipedia was a brave social experiment.  It has failed.  Dbuckner 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually share your sympathies above. The social experiment of wikipedia is failing and the example of what has happened to me (per history articles-my field of expertise) is sad.  My attempt to defend an innocent bystander from disruptions and ill-will seems also to be failing. That is all true. As I have stated often, I do not debate the contents, but the wrong done. There is no need to bring the above statement up again, I already questioned SlimVirgin for doing so, since this statement was changed after it was written weeks ago.  My proposition that we -right the wrong done by SlimVirgin and work from there, is out of sense of justice. Then as a community, Mel, yourself, Ted (if he ever returns) can work together to improve this article. That is how wikipedia works, to get it right through collaboration and consensus. I do not wish to argue continuously. It is as if no one listens, but simply responds. No war exists here. Simply a struggle to right the original wrong, use Mel's improvements, and your thoughts on the subject to improve the article.  I got involved here because of what SlimVirgin did.  This is your range of expertise, and when the wrong is righted and the community works together, achievement can result. Only the few make it harder on the rest of us. But the many, united together in common hope, with evidence and facts, can through the rule of consensus progress toward works of excellence.  That is what we came here for.  You came here and I, to offer our expertise, to engage with the community at large to put together a free-encyclopedia that the world could turn to and gather information from for their studies; to build together and work out our problems through citations and fact.  We came because we love knowledge, we are pushed around by the few, who have ruined our experience. But they are the few, that very small few, and once recognized for their actions, the many who want harmony and truth, can united to prevail for that truth, that justice, that Wiki-way. Let us not turn back but forward and face this situation with all that brought us here. Let us work together and as a community and overcome the small molehills that like a mirage in the blinding sun of the desert, looks as if it were a mountain. --Northmeister 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Northmeister, it appears that Mel, Dbuckner, Charles Stewart, and Ancheta Wis have the expertise needed to write a good article based on Mel's version, while retaining the good material in the previous version. Please allow them to get on with that. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonetheless Then I leave Wikipedia, after many years of work, and many articles on philosophy.  Just to be clear, it is because of people like you [Northmeister], who say (your words) "I do not debate the contents, but the wrong done".  It's not clear that any wrong was done here.  Mel, who is a professional philosopher and a good writer, reverted an edit by someone who is not a professional philosopher, and is not a good writer.  What's wrong with that?  And in any case, the most important thing is the contents.  I'm fed up with working with people like you.  Dbuckner 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'll come back when there is a decent editorial policy.  It's unfair that people who have some sort of respect within their peer group, have to put up with this constant low level of aggregation. It was not like this when I started on WP.  The lunatics will eventually take over the asylum.  Dbuckner 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ME? Mel did not revert first. Check the edit history. It was SlimVirgin. Your arguments continue to state fallacies. You have the personal choice to leave. To blame my defense of someone who was wronged by SlimVirgin (who has wrong others in the past), on your leaving based on your false assumptions above, is specious at best. People like me? What sort of person am I to defend a fellow editor from abuse? What sort of person am I to right a wrong done to Ted after SlimVirgin was ruled against in a mediation case and responded in kind here to revert his entire work? What does that make me? I concur about editorial policy, there is actually a decent one, just the few like SlimVirgin who abuse their positions by what she has caused and done here at this page. Look at the results of it. Had she not violated 'don't disrupt to make a point' this whole thing would not be occuring, as I would not be here trying to defend a good and honest editor who was abused by her. Am I a lunatic by your accusation? If defending others from abuse is lunatic then I am guilty. If attempting to defend wiki-policy on decency and 'do not disrupt' makes me a lunatic, then am I am guilty. If attempting to right a wrong done by SlimVirgin here makes me a lunatic, then guilty.  Why are you so hostile towards me? I've never been hostile towards you?  It doesn't make any sense. I've called for harmony and working together and I am accused of being a lunatic, once again guilty as charge, if that is the definition. --Northmeister 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As per by latest statement

message: I am finding this entire experience exceedingly unpleasant, and so I have decided to leave the Wikipedia community.  I'm just waiting for some responses on a couple of issues before I finalize that.  I would, however, like to make a few last comments re: this page before I go, which will hopefully settle some disagreements.
;Dbuckner, Mel:I wouldn't disagree with you on most of your points.  My issue is not with Mel's rewrite, or with DBuckner's desire to re-separate the Syllogism and Term Logic pages.  My objection is to SlimVirgin's crass exportation of a personal vendetta into article content.  It's a pity that the syllogism page got caught up in that.  I will say that the one line you keep bringing up "Formal logic is a complex game. And I do mean game - in its intricacies it resembles the world's best crossword puzzle. For the most part, these intricacies develop from difficulties with variant category constructions: subsets, negations, exclusions. e.g." is one I probably would have cut out myself, except I forgot I put it in.   Well... the second half is actually true, if maybe a little on the NOR side... but in itself this was not grounds for reverting the entire article.  Frankly, under other circumstances I would have loved to work on the article with both of you, but... I just don't like it here.
;Northmeister:If you respect me, and respect that I honestly tried to help you on the other page, please do not bring the fight with SlimVirgin here.  Let it be, and let the people who really want to reconstruct the page get to work.  I will not be working here, and if you leave as well, SlimVirgin will have no further reason to be here either.  She won't control herself (she's not capable of it), so it's up to you to be the responsible one.  Ok?
;Ancheta, and other observers:My apologies for all this.  I got some crap stuck on my shoe in a different context and it dragged itself in here after me.  Not much I can do about it, but I do feel bad.
;SlimVirgin:Since I'm leaving, I feel free to tell you that you are one of three people in the world that I have reason to disrespect utterly.  You have no perspective, no self-discipline, no sense of context, and no sense of decency or propriety.  Go away, you're useless.
Administrator trolls, I swear...  and you wonder why the social experiment is failing here?  Ted 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do Ted, and I will not intervene here any longer. Sorry to see you leave. Good wishes and luck in the future. --Northmeister 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last comments before I leave for good 

message: For those who want to work on the article using the version before the version before my rewrite, I've moved it here.  My feeling is that a lot of the material would better moved to Term logic or even to Mediæval logic, but some of it certainly belongs in this article. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/rewrite project 

message: What about the famous parody on these logical examples:
 One cat has one tail more than no cat.
 No cat has nine tails.
 Thus, one cat has ten tails.
What is this an example of? 惑乱 分からん 23:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The negative phrase "No cat" is being misused as a positive concept. Happens all the time.Lestrade 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative syllogy

message: The logic that Frege invented was second-order not first-order. Both he and Pierce produced second-order logics at around the same time. That students are now taught a first-order variant of Frege's logic is because it was subsequently discovered that second-order logic has certain limitations that are not present in first-order logic. One of the key benefits of Frege's logic was its ability to deal with the problem of multiple generality in a way that Aristotelian logic could not. As a starting point, Wikipedia articles on multiple generality and quantification touch on this point.
:Ok, it was corrected! Cyb3r (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Frege

message: Hello,
First of all I'd like to third' the above statements and mention that the opening is indeed confusing and possibly wrong.
Secondly I believe that Datisi under the paragraph Types of syllogism is wrongly stated. Currently is stands as following:
Datisi
    All the industrious boys in this school have red hair.
    Some of the industrious boys are boarders.
    Some boarders in this school have red hair. 
Doesn't this give of the wrong conclusion. This example assumes that there are red haired boarders in the school.
If it sais "Some of the industrious boys IN THE SCHOOL are boarders." than the conclusion would be valid.
::A valid point - appropriate changes have been made. Tevildo 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Datisi type explanation

message: Consider the following claims: "All humans are not perfect / No humans are perfect." In my opinion, they are different or at least can be interpreted differently. When P is "the object is perfect" and A is "for all humans", the first sentence says -A: P (A = "for all", P is a statement), in other words "it is not true for all humans that they are perfect". The second says -E: P, "there is no human for which holds: he/she is perfect" which has the same value in logic as A: -P. Careful consideration: is there an error or is it just me?86.50.9.167 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand "All humans are not perfect" as ∀x H(x)→¬P(x) and "No humans are perfect" as ¬∃x H(x)∧P(x) where H(x) means "x is human" and P(x) means "x is perfect". Now, assuming the law of excluded middle and that (¬∃x ¬A(x))↔(∀x A(x)), then the two are equivalent. bungalo (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Error between language and logic

message: Or "without the jews, there would be no holocaust". Are any of those statements syllogistic in nature? I heard this one guy say that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the Cold War, while in a way the Soviets started that Cold War along with the US. Then I thought, the Soviets made themselves collapse. The same structure as the jew-statement I guess. I was wondering if that was syllogistic. Mallerd (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without Auschwitz, there would be no Israel 

message: I'm no expert on syllogisms, but isn't the following incorrect?
 Fesapo:
 No humans are perfect.
 All perfect creatures are mythical.
 Some mythical creatures are not human.
Shouldn't the conclusion be "No mythical creatures are human?" JDCAce (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Cf. van Eick. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: That would have to be fesapE, since "No mythical creatures are human?" is type E not O.--Philogo (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: see the following at  para 5:-
Here is an example of a fourth figure EAO (Fesapo) syllogism: 
* No dog is a bird. 
* All birds are winged. 
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
* Some winged animals are not dogs. 
It seems like a perfectly valid argument. It is valid, because there are birds. However, suppose we replace birds by purple three winged mountain goats and winged by border collie. We get 
* No dog is a purple three winged mountain goat. 
All purple three winged mountain goats are border collies. 
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
* Some border collies are not dogs. 
In mediaeval times, people might have said that the second premise is false because there are no purple three winged mountain goats. Today we see both premises as true, the conclusion as false. We don't discard poor Fesapo altogether; we just say that Fesapo, which follows the scheme 
* No P is M 
* All M are S 
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
* Some S are not P 
is valid as long as M does not describe some non-existent class of objects. To put it in the form of an answer to exercise 5 of Section 5.5 of the textbook, if the (set of objects corresponding to the) middle term is not empty.
 
* -------------
* -------------
The form is 
* PeM : No P is M
* MaS : All M is S
* *SoP : Some S is not P
From 
* PeM : No P is M
we may deduce by conversion
* PoM : Some P is not M
and with this new premis the conclusion then follows intuitively
* PoM : Some P is not M : Some dog is not a purple three winged mountain goat.
* MaS : All M is S : All purple three winged mountain goats are border collies. 
* *SoP : Some S is not P : Some border collies are not dogs. 
Thus Fesapo is a strengthened form, 
*PeM : No P is M : No dog is a purple three winged mountain goat.
being "stronger" than 
* PoM : Some P is not M : Some dog is not a purple three winged mountain goat.
--Philogo (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacious Fesapo 

message: I tidied up the section "Existential import", primarily adding punctuation (there was almost none) but much remains to be done:
(1) What are "forms Ahab, Abe, Ail and Alb"?
(2) Is it acceptable to use the abbreviations "AaB" etc in a section that aims to be comprehensible to non-specialists?
(3) 'If "No men are fire-eating rabbits" is true, then "There are fire-eating dragons" is false', apparently. Even ignoring the rabbits/dragons discrepancy, I don't see how this follows from the preceding section.
(4) Apparently, Strawson (does he have a first name?) claims the answer to question (a) is no. Question (a) is "Which statements of these four forms have existential import and with regard to which terms?" It does not admit of a yes/no answer. 91.105.5.246 (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If "No men are fire-eating rabbits" is true, then "There are fire-eating dragons" is false.  Is that correct?  BTW I presume this is P. F. Strawson?  Groomtech (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existential import 

message: Not for nothing, but this entire article seems to be an expanded definition. Is it possible this is best done on Wiki Dictionary?
Jbaker071 (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not for nothing

message: Under Basic Structure, there is this statement: "In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. More modern logicians allow some variation."  
What is "some variation" supposed to mean?  Sometimes A and B are the same term?  Sometimes A or B actually means a third term, c?
Broadcaster101 (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Structure; some variation 

message: The "A witch?" sketch of the movie 'The Holy Grail" seems an ideal example of syllogisms at play. The album "The Album of the Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy Grail" perhaps offers the only example in popular culture of an explanation through comedy of syllogisms in Track 8, 'A Lesson In Logic'.
e.g. "The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife.
'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "
(http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php)
Could this not be linked as an example?
(180.183.8.220 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monty Python Syllogism sketch 

message: The structure of syllogisms, if you accept the formalism of representing the "terms" in the premises and the conclusions as a simple and single symbol is  the same as the problems of sorting three items. Based on their appearance two items are compared, then it is concluded that one is greater than the other, so you have a sequence, a, b. If next you have a new item to be placed in that sequence or pair on the same principle, meaning size, then you may find that c is greater than a, but smaller than b, so the right sequence will a,c,b. In other words you place c by halving the sum of a+b or dividing the separator between  the two items (whole, integer) into two fractions, which will be the Middle term. So what you do is, you duplicate and reverse the relation between A and B (making C > A) and then you get the conclusion (C > B) right. Of course, you do not want to work with irrational numbers, so you make M to become an integer too as represented by the literals.
Check out that when you look at the terms in term of being more, or more numerous or greater, you will get the same arrangement as by sorting in the above fashion, which is widely in use in algebra.
For instance:
 
 Major premise A < B
 Minor premise C > A
 Conclusion    C > B
 A(1) < B(2) C(3) > A(1) C(3) > B(2)
 A B C 
Notice also:
 Major premise: All humans are mortal.
 Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
 Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
Here the scope of mortal is wider than that of humans
The scope of Greeks is narrower than that of humans.
So you get: Greeks, Humans, Mortals sorted.
===Just for fun===
 Major Premise: 2 + 3 = 5
 Minor Premise= 1 + 2 = 3
 _________________________
 Conclusion:    1 + 3 = 4
Or see it as spatial semantics:   A B C
 A is on the left of B
 C is on the right of A
 C is on the right of B
 
Genezistan (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What syllogisms are about

message: Major Premise: 2 + 3 = 5
 Minor Premise= 1 + 2 = 3
 _________________________
 Conclusion:    1 + 3 = 4
Or see it as spatial semantics:   A B C
 A is on the left of B
 C is on the right of A
 C is on the right of B
 
Genezistan (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Just for fun

message: : Hello guys. I made a syllogism and i am asking your help to improve it.
: Als following the rules of wikipedia - can i post the conclusion of a syllogism in an article?
: Please have a look - the editors of the page dont agree with me and i dont trust them - i would like to hear a second oppinion.
Criticism of the Federal Reserve
: Thanks, Alextoader (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with a syllogism 

message: The picture for the Barbara syllogism formalizes it in modern predicate logic as follows:
Ex: Mx & Px
Ex: Sx & Mx
thus
Ex: Sx & Px
(in words: "there is an M that's also P, there is an S that's also M, thus, there is an S that's also P"; it seems this is not even just wrong, but also false.)
It should read:
Ax: Mx --> Px
Ax: Sx --> Mx
thus
Ax: Sx --> Px
EelkeSpaak (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The bars over the top negate.  not(Ex: Mx & not-Px) is equivalent to Ax: Mx --> Px.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, the bars negate, and I know that, but not everyone will know that.  I added the following text that I hope will make that clearer: "In the predicate logic expressions, a horizontal bar over an expression means to negate ("logical not") the result of that expression." Dwheeler (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong predicate logic version of Barbara syllogism (and possibly others)? 

message: Just had occasion to refer to the article, and I want to say that I found it well organized and comprehensive - at least it covered whatever I want to know. Thank you for the article. You know who you are.
Mp1233 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Some of the syllogisms include a third required existence statement when expressed as predicate logic. For example, statements like \exist x S(x) (note the lack of an "and").  THANK YOU, whoever included that information!!  However, I'm trying to track down the source for those existence statements.  Which source specifically provided the third existence statements?  There are a lot of sources & it's not obvious which one was used for that.  Thanks.  Dwheeler (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which source was used for the existence statements in their predicate logic forms? 

message: Hello!
I already have written in German Wikipedia; There is a german logician (Walther Brüning), who is able to explain syllogistik in a ("strict") "mechanical" way, like a calculation. It is nearly as easy as the calculation used to be in truth tables. I made a tutorial about it (1 hour [and with at least one mistake]). The book of Walther Brüning ("Grundlagen der strengen Logik") is only available in German (it is also on google books). The reason why i write this here is, because his thinking about syllogistic would change half of the article and this change I dont dare now. I would be curious about your opinions.
Tutorial:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2esURv_dtBk&vl=en old, broken link, new one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuB_vAPrUvA --123qweasd (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: nevermind. Maybe i will write an article about strict syllogistic in german wikipedia 123qweasd (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I will dare it though --123qweasd (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Have a look please, at my simplified Venn diagrams and reduction to short list of 7 essential syllogisms, all others are trivial modifications.  The aims could be similar.  hgwb 20:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote an article in german wikipedia: strenge Logik. Sorry, but i dont understand, why there should be exactly seven syllogisms. For any questions about strict logic you can ask me. Here is a short introduction (again): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2esURv_dtBk&vl=en 123qweasd (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who are interested: Here a version of an old attempt to change the article, redirects to section "Strict syllogistic": Syllogism (from 21.May,2018) # Strict syllogistic 123qweasd (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A project of a python-application to train strict syllogism --123qweasd (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  strict logic by Walther Brüning 

message: There is a clear difference. No source calls it an argument.,Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism is not an argument it is a view 

message: The statement is made that "In antiquity, two rival theories of the syllogism existed: Aristotelian syllogistic and Stoic syllogistic" but then only Aristotelian syllogistic is described. I know nothing about this, but could some put in at leas a single sentence to describe the alternative, Stoic syllogistic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.175.42 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoic syllogistic 

message: The three-circle Venn diagrams for the Syllogisms are much too complicated (absurdly so).   As a retired maths prof and logician/philosopher, I would NEVER use the ones shown now in one of my classes.  Below, I submit examples of vastly simpler Venn diagrams, or Euler diagrams — geometric "proofs" — with two twists or clarifying devices:
REDUCTION TO SEVEN (7) ESSENTIALLY DISTINCT SYLLOGISMS
      (1.)  The boxes are given  characteristic borders. 
      (2.)  Diagram has boxes labeled with example predicates.  
         ……………
    S = /     \
        \_____/
          ……………
    M =  |     |
         |_____|
          …………… 
    P =  {     }
         {_____}
The joint presence of three boxes in a syllogistic diagram below implies three pairs of two boxes, the configuration of each pair illustrating one of the three propositions of the syllogism.
REDUCTION TO SEVEN (7) ESSENTIALLY DISTINCT SYLLOGISMS:
As probably is fairly well-known, we can reduce the count of syllogisms from 24 to 11 by 
  (1.) dropping five "weak" syllogisms Barbari (AAI-1), Celaront   
       (EAO-1), Cesaro (EAO-2), Calemos (AEO-4), Camestros (AEO-2);
  (2.) identifying equivalent propositions due to the symmetries
             AeB <=> BeA,    AiB <=> BiA.
Thus for example all four EIO syllogisms, through the 4 figures are really the same or at least equivalent, and all four may be represented by FERIO (EIO-1).  This leads to the following table of eleven (11) "reduced" syllogisms or equivalence classes.  
However, even 11 syllogisms is too many, there are really only seven (7) essentially truly distinct syllogisms:  Barbara, Darii, Felapton, Ferio, Celarent, Bocardo and Baroco. Please see below for discussion ("Homework").
To simplify reading of diagrams, premises are stated next in non-traditional order:
   First premise (=minor premise)
   Second premise (=major premise)
However,for the three-letter codes we retain the traditional form, placing the major premise first, before minor premise:
  1.  Barbara (AAA-1): SaM,MaP:SaP 
  2.  Darii (AII-1): SiM,MaP:SiP         
  3.  Felapton (EAO-3):  MaS,MeP,SoP      
  4.  Ferio (EIO-1): SiM,MeP:SoP         
  5.  Celarent (EAE-1): SaM,MeP:SeP      
  6.  Bocardo (OAO-3):  MaS,MoP:SoP 
  7.  Baroco (AOO-2):SoM,PaM:SoP
It is interesting to exhibit the seven (7) simplified Venn or Euler diagrams for this list with examples showing both, similarities and changes, as we pass from one to the next
DIAGRAMS OF SEVEN REDUCED SYLLOGISMS.
 - - - - -    
 1. Barbara (AAA-1): SaM,MaP:SaP 
  all S is M; all M is P: all S is P 
  S:Greeks M:Men P:mortal
     All Greeks are men.    (SaM)
     All men are mortal.    (MaP)
   ∴ All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)
    …………………………………………………………………………
   {     mortals               }
   {    …………………………………………       }  
   {    |     men       |      }
   {    |   ………………………   |      }   
   {    |  / Greeks  \  |      } 
   {    |  \_________/  |      }
   {    |_______________|      }
   {___________________________}
- - - - -
 2. Darii (AII-1): SiM,MaP:SiP  (=Datisi (AII-3), 2 in class)
  some S is M; all M is P: some S is P
  S:fragrant; M:flower; P:lifeform
  
        Some fragrant things are flowers  (SiM)
        All flowers  are lifeforms         (MaP)
      ∴ Some fragrant things are lifeforms (SiP)
          …………………………………………………………………
         {                         } lifeforms
         {   ………………………………………………    }   
         {   |  flowers        |   }
         {   |     ………………………………|………}………………     
         {   |    /  ($)       |   }  ?    \                              
         {   |    \____________|___}_______/                               
         {   |_________________|   }  fragrant things  
         {_________________________} 
- - - - -
 3. Felapton (EAO-3):MaS,MeP:SoP (=Fesapo (EAO-4), 2 in class)    
       
  all M is S; no M is P: some S is not P
  S:lifeform; M:flower; P:heavy weight
      All flowers are lifeforms.         (MaS)
      No flowers are heavy weight.       (MeP)
   ∴ Some lifeforms are not heavy weight. (SoP)
     …………………………………lifeforms  
    /  ……………………      \     
   /  |        |  …………\…………………
  /   |  ($)   | {  ?  \      }
  \   |flowers | {_____/______} 
   \  |________|      / heavy weight things  
    \________________/   
The symbol ($) means that set S of flowers is not empty, there is stuff in it (flowers) . .!!
 - - - - - 
 4. Ferio (EIO-1):SiM,MeP:SoP (=Festino (EIO-2)=Ferison(EIO-3)=Fresison (EIO-4), 4 in class)
 
  some S is M; no M is P: some S is not P
  S:mammal; M:carnivore; P:ruminant
      Some carnivores are mammals. (MiS)
      No herbivores are carnivores. (PeM)
   ∴ Some mammals are not herbivores. (SoP)
        ……………………………………
       |             |
      …|…..…….…………………|………………  mammals 
    /  |             |       \     
   /   |             |    …………\……………
  /    |   ($)       |  {      \  ?  }
  \    | carnivores  |  {______/_____} 
   \   |_____________|        /  herbivores
    \________________________/   
 - - - -
 5. Celarent (EAE-1): SaM,MeP:SeP (=Cesare (EAE-2), 2 in class)
  all S is M; no M is P: no S is P
  S:flowers; M:lifeforms; P:fulgurite
      All flowers are lifeforms.   (SaM)
      No lifeforms are fulgurites. (MeP)
    ∴ No flowers are fulgurites.   (SeP) 
    
     ………………………………………………          
     |                 |       …………………
     |   …………………       |      {        }  fulgurite
     |  /flowers \     |      {________} 
     |  \________/     |     
     |_________________| 
                lifeforms 
  
 - - - - - 
 6. Bocardo (OAO-3): MaS,MoP:SoP 
  all M is S; some M is not P: some S is not P
  S:plant; M:flower; P:fragrant
     All flowers are lifeforms.     (MaS)
     Some flowers are not fragrant.  (MoP)
   ∴ Some lifeforms are not fragrant. (SoP)
     …………………………………  lifeforms
    /  ……………………………  \     
   /  |        ………|……\………
  /   | ($)    {  |   \  ?}
  \   |flowers {__|___/___} 
   \  |___________|  / fragrant things
    \_______________/   
- - - - - 
 7. Baroco (AOO-2): SoM,PaM:SoP
 
  some S is not M; all P is M: some S is not P
  S:fragrant; M:lifeform; P:flower
     Some fragrant things are not lifeforms. (SoM)
     All flowers are lifeforms.             (PaM)
   ∴ Some fragrant things are not flowers.  (SoP)
    …………………………………………………… lifeforms
   |    ………………………………    |  
   |   {   flowers  }   |       
   |   {     …………………}………|……………….      
   |   {    /       }   |        \      
   |   {   /    ?   }   |  ($)    \      
   |   {   \        }   |         /    
   |   {    \_______}___|________/    
   |   {____________}   |  fragrant things
   |____________________|
List of the seven (7) essential ones, with the above examples in short form "syllogism (P S)": 
   Barbara (Mortal Greeks) 
   Darii (Lifeform Fragrants) 
   Felapton (Non-Heavy Weight Lifeforms) 
   Ferio (Non Herbivore Mammals)
   Celarent (Fulgurite Non Flowers)
   Bocardo (Non-Fragrant Lifeforms)  
   Baroco (Non-Flower Fragrants)  
Homework For Syllogism Tutorial: Please convince yourself that only these seven (7) syllogisms are truly distinct, as in two pairs there is no actual distinction in the inference:
    Darrii & Disamis are identical inferences.
    Celarent & Camestres are identical inferences.
Furthermore, two additional syllogisms can be eliminated, being weakened forms:
    
Frst, Bamalip AAI is weaker than Barbara AAA, having a weaker conclusion.
     Bamalip:  If MaS & PaM, then SiP.  
     Barbara:  If SaM & MaP, then SaP.
Perform a substitution of variables in Barbara:  
     Barbara:  If PaM & MaS, then PaS.
But PaS for nonempty P implies SiP, hence Bamalip is weaker than Barbara.  If P is empty, then Bamalip is invalid, as is well-known.
Second, Darapti is weaker than Darii, having stronger premises:
      Darapti: If MaS & MaP, then SiP.  
      Darii: SiM, MaP: SiP.
For Darapti to be true, M must be nonempty, as is well-known. If so, the premises imply SiM & MaP, hence SiP by Darii.
hgwb 22:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty to put this long section in a box. See also v:Talk:Syllogisms for context. Watchduck (quack) 00:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified Venn Diagrams For Syllogisms And Reduction To Seven (7) Essentially Distinct Syllogisms. 

message: Can anyone tell me why a bust of Socrates is shown on the page, rather than Aristotle's? Thanks--80.147.11.76 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Socrates and not Aristotle (as it should be)?