Talk:Non-logical symbol

message: Lede is poorly worded.--Philogo 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean exactly. This article is doing the splits between mathematics and philosophy. I am not very happy about the "area of specialty" language, but I am just accepting it as something that sounds like what a philsopher would say. Or is that the only thing you like and you find the rest too math-centric? Or too technical? Or philosophically incorrect? Honestly, I have no idea. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Now I have an idea: Do you think there should be a discussion of what the non-logical symbols are, as opposed to how they are used? Then the problem would perhaps be one of math-centrism. Most mathematicians would be perfectly happy with taking the set of natural numbers, a set of individual zoo animals, or the set of water atoms in the universe, as the set of non-logical symbols. In fact, in model theory it is general practice when talking about a model of a theory to add all elements of the model into the language (whenever needed) as new constant symbols that signify themselves. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In Logic, a Non-logical symbol are constants which are either  Predicates or  Individual constants; the logical constants are ~, V etc. There are also variables. Simple.  I say lede is poorly worded because it does not say this or equivalent.--Philogo 21:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In my view it is wooly waffle, and if this explantion of the term by a student in a test, I'd give it C- (2.0) with the remarks "Confused: you must get a grip on these basic terms".  No offence meant to anybody.--Philogo 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: PS I was getting grumpy. There are some interesting issues that can be disssed, e.g, what we designate as logical consntats and wat as prdicates (equality for eg.), and suh issues are getting ccccclose to the border with philosophy of logic.  But reader must get basic terms in head first, walk before running.  Some of these articles seem to set out deliberatly to confuse, or are like some horrible word salad.--Philogo 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: lede

message: a) I am not convinced that this article is necessary or worth the time we are spending discussing it.  What needs to be said is said or could be said in the article First-order_logic#Syntax_of_first-order_logic
b) That article might set the standard for terminology to use, and then any other "subsidary" articles could conform to that standard.--Philogo 12:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Got your message.  I'm always glad to talk.  Here?
See details about the origin/intended motivation of this article few paragraphs above, at the end of the previous section of this talk page.
If it will be a help and You all agree, I can ask Oleg Alexandrov (he has  administrator rights and himself a mathematician, as far as I know) to delete the article "per request author". As I am the initiator of this article, he probably will do it quickly. Physis (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a plan. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But not one that is likely to work (unless Oleg makes a serious mistake). This rule (Wikipedia:CSD#G7) is only for cases where nobody else has edited the article significantly, so it obviously doesn't apply here. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant not necessarily the process of speedy deletion. There is another way of easy deletion: called proposed deletion. The remark in list item 3 suggests for me that the consent of the initiating author can facilitate the deletion process. Physis (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. That's just about notifying every significant contributor to make sure they get a chance to object. You can try this process, but if anything from this article could be useful elsewhere, merging it would be formally more correct (and even simpler). I have no clear opinion on this right now. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I shall wait, I shall not initiate any administrative process without appropriate consensus. Physis (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: merge and standard terminolgy

message: Until we decide whether to merge or del this article surely it should be renamed "non-logical symbol" and deivert from a page non-logical constant.--Philogo 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I have done it. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Bless! I have done some renaming from "non-logical constant" to "non-logical symbol" in other misc articles.--Philogo 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Meanwhile: Rename this article

message: Is this quite as it should be:
* In logic, the non-logical symbols (sometimes also called non-logical constants) of a language of first-order logic are all of the symbols which are not part of symbolic logic, including symbols which, in an interpretation, may stand for individual constants, variables, functions, or predicates. What does "which are not part of symbolic logic" mean? --Philogo (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the exact same concern as I was working in it. I think the Carnap distinction is actually a clear one, but not perhaps what has been clarified by subsequent analytic philosophers. "not part of symbolic logic" doesn't tell us anything. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if it's Carnap words then why not put them in quotes?  Sounds like non-logical symbols  is current term for non-logical constants, but the article does not expalin what they are at all well.    If it does not sound immodest, if I do not understand what this article is saying, then most people would not.  So what's the point of it as is? Do we need a whole article on just one term anyway?--Philogo (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the text here is not a quote Philogo. It also explicitly attributes the terminology. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st sentence