Talk:Corresponding conditional

message: New article explaining meaning and use of corresponding conditionals in Logic Philogo 02:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: This article elucidates the definition of "corresponding conditional" as described in "argument". Also, it is substantiated by the Free Online Dictionary of Computing. Considering these points, I do not believe this article should be classified as "junk," as it obviously is a valid and useful concept, so I am removing the deletion proposal. --Beefyt (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to deletion 

message: Please give any reasons here for diverting to strict conditional before doing so again.  Thanks--Philogo 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Philogo: please give some thought to Glemtpm's suggestion that corresponding conditional and strict conditional be combined into a larger article about conditions in general. Gemtpm: can you give a better reason for merging the articles? --Beefyt (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I have reverted this article to the state it was in before merging with strict conditional. Philogo: if you have any changes in mind please consider first establishing consensus, i.e., do not make 10 edits in a row and revert sections to previous versions. That kind of consensus should be established on this page first. I recommend making small changes and waiting to see if any editors disagree with the change. Silence implies consent. --Beefyt (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Where is "Glemtpm's suggestion that corresponding conditional and strict conditional be combined into a larger article about conditions in general." to be read? There do not appear to be any other editors who wish to help improve this article with whom to form a consensus. Check the history. I'll carry on improving it to my best ability but if anybody thinks I have got it wrong or could make it even better pleae comment here. OK? Thanks --Philogo 22:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Divert

message: The article is now more or less in the state it was when it was last comprehensible. Subequen edits havd caused deteriroration to such an extent that deletion was suggested.   I have added a new paragraph this PM explaining in more detial how a cc can be used practically to test an argument for validity. To my best knowledge the only reason that you would want to know about ccs is because it give you a useful technique for testing an argument for validity. In other words its usefullness in pedagogical. I a;ways used it when I helped teach logoc to undergradutea for about three years and it proved both useful and easy to understnad.  It also serves to bridge the gap beween Arguments, which is what people are interested in when they take up logic, and formal text books whihc hardly mention then after caheter 1! When I originally wrote the article back in February 2007 I had an example derivation but I dumped that because I thought it would be too complicated for people who might be reading this article, which is pitched at readers who have embarked on a course in elementary logic at undergrad level .   If I ever got the time I might do one on truth trees as well.  Any suggestions just holler here! But please no more divert or wholesale deletions of material without giving some reasons first!  If we don't agree I am sure I can get another member of the Logic ask force to drop by and comment. --Philogo 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Since 2007 this article has had 156 edits by 17 editors and to date has no sources or references. External links that qualify as references should be used as such. An external link has a specific purpose and Wikipedia content is governed by core policies that also includes no original research and neutral point of view. Ideally I would hope that someone would take a look at this and see if there are references and "if" any of the listed external links can be used as such. Otr500 (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No source or references. [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)