Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic/Archive 1

message: Shall we tell SatyrBot to continue?
*Yes - With all the same categories submitted. They have had their due process. We can pare it down after we look at what we have. Gregbard 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clutter is not really a very high priority. I think you are overreacting. Furthermore, there isn't any hurry getting around to these so like I said, lets see what we have. Gregbard 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when do projects ask other projects if they can make a page part of their project too? That's just being territorial, which has no place here. There are ways to collapse the banner so that it is tiny. So clutter isn't an issue. As for the size of the project. What do you care? Is there some kind of rush? Gregbard 07:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously claiming that all articles related to a theorem -- any theorem -- should be part of WikiProject Logic? It's like creating a WikiProject English Language and then adding every article in Wikipedia to that project. Territoriality has nothing to do with it, it's just waste of time and resources for everybody. --Zvika 07:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories "biological theorems" and "economic theorems" are not included. But then, for every single mathematical theorem there is a logical theorem that corresponds to it. That is not necessarily true of the others. There is obviously a close relationship. However, that is besides the point. The Wikiproject includes mathematical logic in its scope. Gregbard 07:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But most of the theorems in :Category:Mathematical theorems are not mathematical logic. For instance, the first three theorems of the list are 15 and 290 theorems, Abel's curve theorem, and Abel's theorem. They all belong to mathematical fields different from mathematical logic. I agree with Trovatore that if the participants think they can help with these articles, adding the tag is fine to me. But tagging the whole category when almost none of the articles belong in the field of (mathematical) logic is just silly. I would also remove :Category:Computer arithmetic, :Category:Game theory, :Category:Lemmas, :Category:Mathematical relations and :Category:Probability theory. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object to excluding :Category:Game theory and :Category:Probability theory, whereas the others may contain some articles, but may not be worth a complete tagging if (why I ask myself?) it upsets people too much. Gregbard
* No.  I agree with the points made by Zvika. Derek farn 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on moving forward

message: Following are my suggestions for categories for un-tagging. Feel free to modify and/or comment. I suggest we go by Satyr's guideline: a category should be at least 80% related to Logic in order to be included. --Zvika 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for un-tagging 

message: At the moment there is a proposal to merge the articles Axiomatic system and Formal system, which I don't think is a good idea. I have noticed that the term formal system is listed in the logic-template as key-concept... and the term axiomatic system is not. Now I wonder if any of you can take a look at this discussion at the Talk:Formal system and give your point of view on this subject. Thanks - Mdd 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A formal system isn't necessarily an axiomatic one. The deductive apparatus of a system may consist of either transformation rules (also called rules of inference), axioms, or both. There is no need to do a complete merge in which one article completely disappears. However, the two may be integrated. This usually involves a paragraph that touches on the topic, with a link to the main article using . I think if you look at how they organize big city articles with a section on "History of Denver" (for instance), but with a link to a whole article on "History of Denver." Some form of integration might work. Gregbard 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this (quick) response. I have copied your comment to the Talk:Formal system page and I will respond over there. - Mdd 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[Axiomatic system]] and [[Formal system]] ?? 

message: Background: Some members of WikiProject Logic have previously suggested a list of categories (Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic/Categories) which they believe are relevant to the project. A bot has started tagging the talk pages of all articles in these categories, but was stopped midway after complaints were received from some editors from other projects. In a recent straw poll it seemed there was consensus against continued execution of the bot, but it was not clear whether running the bot on a smaller set of categories was deemed appropriate. An example of the modifications suggested for the original set can be found in the preceding sections of this talk page. Do you support automatic tagging of the revised set of categories is?
:::No one is able to answer this question in good faith. We have not designated the categories. This poll needs to wait until after th e11th. Gregbard 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, Gregbard, I'm the one who started the above list of categories for exclusion, so I don't know why you are again accusing me of acting in bad faith. I had thought there was an agreement on continued tagging of a large amount of articles if they can be shown to be (mostly) relevant to the project. However, following Paul August's comments above I realize that consensus has not been reached in this matter, which I think is more fundamental than whether a particular category is excluded or not. Hence this straw poll. You will notice that I have not expressed an opinion in this matter, for the simple reason that I have not yet decided what my opinion is, so please don't automatically assume that I am against you. --Zvika 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Zvika (after an edit conflict where I didn't say it anywhere near as well).  The question of whether any automatic tagging is to be done still requires consensus of some sort.  Whether it just requires consensus of the WikiProject, or of Wikipedia as a whole, is unclear.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it is acceptable, as it has worked for several other projects. Let's work on putting an acceptable proposal together. These efforts to shut the whole thing down will result in more work for the whole project. Gregbard 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still requires consensus of some sort.  As I am uncertain as to whether of the categories (other than the logician categories) is appropriate for automatic tagging, we need to determine what we're doing.  (And, we need a centralized WikiProject location for the discussion of the categories to be automatically tagged, if we're going ahead.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't accused anyone of bad faith at this point. However, Zvika, you agreed (see above under categories for inclusion and exclusion "Sounds good") to create a list of categories to be-detagged, and for exclusion. Now you are proposing this question to stop the bot altogether. We have already been moving forward on the agreement. When one party agrees in to something, and then later the agreed upon terms are not accepted as a basis of moving forward that's exactly what diplomats call negotiating in bad faith. Let's move forward with a list that the vast majority of people will not complain about. Then when there are a few complaints, we can say that we did what we needed to do to ensure that complaints would be minimal. We might even at that point consider that some complaints are just invalid complaints, and should be ignored. Gregbard 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having reconsidered, I think that automatic tagging of some of the categories is reasonable.  However, we need to reach a final consensus that the tagging is acceptable after the final list is established.  Also, because of the way the untagging will probably work — that is, removing the tag from articles in those categories, whether or not the tag was added because of manual addition or membership in another category, I think we need to just removal all the tags and re-add them by the modified category list.  (In other words, I think we should go forward provided that the list is properly trimmed first.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will reluctantly agree. However, you need to understand that some tagged articles are not there because of the bot, but rather because someone took the time to put it there. If we untag all of them and then tag a new list, that will be a lot of time and effort wasted. (It's mine, and satyrbot's time so I guess nobody cares). Let's be smart and just untag those categories that are added to the list above "categories for untagging," and tag those categories originally proposed minus the ones that people are complaining about. This will require that those of you who wish to have their complaints heard in the future, take the time now to add to "categories for exclusion." Gregbard 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg, any editor may civilly voice any concerns they have, at any time they wish, and expect to be "heard". You are not in a position to be able to place restrictions on this expectation. "Speak now or forever hold your peace" is not part of our culture. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. At anytime anyone may edit anything. That is all the more reason that there should not be any objection to moving forward. Eventually, things will straighten themselves out just fine. Gregbard 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think what I and everyone else wants to know is what categories would you exclude that you don't think would help the category or the wikiproject at all. I would like to know your opinion at least on what might annoy people. Gregbard 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a good process to perform after the automatic tagging has occurred. Gregbard 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic tagging of articles 

message: Please look at the findings from my quick look at :Category:Unassessed Logic articles (small print below). My conclusion is that the Logic WikiProject should FIRST pass through all the articles in :Category:WikiProject Philosophy and see which ones should be classified as Logic articles, i.e. philosophical logic. In my quick study of the letter 'A' from :Category:Unassessed Logic articles I found that nearly all the articles which seemed to me to belong to philosophical logic were those that were already DOUBLE-TAGGED, i.e. both for philosophy and logic.  The ones that I found tagged for just WikiProject Logic were not (in my view) much to do with philosophy.
Here are items from the letter 'A', in the first page of :Category:Unassessed Logic articles. These must be part of the 'haul' from the robot, since they are already tagged for the logic project. You are welcome to dispute my assessments, or add your own:
# AD+ This is hard-core set theory (continuum hypothesis). I don't see why the philosophers would want this.
#Abductive reasoning Correctly tagged as relevant for philosophers, but currently is double-tagged for BOTH the Philosophy project and the Logic project, in my opinion. [MY PROPOSAL WORKS FOR THIS ONE].
#Absolute infinite This is about Cantor's work. I see that Cantor is tagged as a logician.  [MY PROPOSAL WORKS]
#Absorption law This is bona fide philosophical logic. Single-tagged. [MY PROPOSAL FAILS HERE, because it wasn't already tagged for Philosophy].
#Abstract algebraic logic Wow, this is hard-core math. Philosophers should stay away, unless they want everything with the word 'logic' in it. Single-tagged for Logic. 
#Accessibility relation Has to  do with modal logic, so I think the philosophers should be interested. Double-tagged for both Philosophy and Logic projects. [PROPOSAL WORKS]
#Accounting method  Seems to be included because it is correctly assigned to :Category:Computational complexity theory. No earthly use to philosophers that I can see. This is theoretical computer science. Are philosophers going to begin sorting linked lists in sub-quadratic time?
#Actor-observer bias Appears to be social psychology. I don't see any connection to logic. Single-tagged i.e. only tagged for Logic, not Philosophy. [Can't score my proposal; I don't think this is logic but others could disagree].
#Ad captandum Since it concerns fallacious arguments, it's fine to be under philosophical logic. Currently double-tagged for both Philosophy and Logic. [PROPOSAL WORKS]
RESULT: My proposal misses out on one article out of the ten listed (i.e. #4) that *should* be in philosophical logic, but would not be captured. This assumes you buy my argument that nos. 1, 5, 7 and 8 are really not philosophical. 
I welcome all reactions to this list of assignments, and the proposal for a manual judgment of the philosophical logic articles. The robot sweep is making unnecessary work for the philosophers doing the assessments, besides annoying the mathematicians. EdJohnston 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a good process to perform after the automatic tagging has occurred. Gregbard 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual tagging of philosophical logic articles: a proposal

message: The following is a list that is the product of the above discussion. It is the most conservative list that can be designated as such. There are categories that obviously belong included which are not (Paradoxes). There are none included which have raised any communicated concern AT ALL. It has been over three weeks since my original request to tag these articles, a task that would be large and tedious otherwise. I have made numerous attempts to publicize, and otherwise solicit input from the stake holding parties.   It is my proposal now to move forward on the untagging list (repeated below as list B), and then begin tagging the new list (list D below). In the event of future complaints, It is my proposal to finish the tagging before addressing further concerns, including possible bot untagging. This proposal is not to be misconstrued as to diminish (or augment) any individual's right to tag or untag any article they wish on an individual basis. I am going to humbly request that SatyrBot begin as soon as it is convenient for him to do so with my apologies for all the drama on behalf of myself and the project. Gregbard 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the request. Gregbard 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the result of the discussion. 

message: * :Category:Formal methods
* :Category:Formal theories of arithmetic
* :Category:Game theory
* :Category:Lemmas
* :Category:Mathematical axioms
* :Category:Mathematical theorems
* :Category:Mathematics paradoxes
* :Category:Paradoxes 
* :Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory 
* :Category:Philosophy of mathematics
* :Category:Probability theory
* :Category:Probability theory paradoxes 
* :Category:Proofs (note 2)
* :Category:Set theory
* :Category:Set-theoretic universes
* :Category:Set theorists
* :Category:Supertasks (note 1)
* :Category:Systems of set theory
* :Category:Theorems
* :Category:Theory of computation
* :Category:Urelements
* :Category:Wellfoundedness
* :Category:Lambda calculus 
* :Category:Z notation
====Some more categories to remove====
* :Category:Argument maps
* :Category:Automata theory
* :Category:Constructible universe
* :Category:Independence results
* :Category:Recursion theory
* :Category:Type theory
Paul August ☎ 03:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  to be removed from original list (C)

message: * :Category:Argument maps
* :Category:Automata theory
* :Category:Constructible universe
* :Category:Independence results
* :Category:Recursion theory
* :Category:Type theory
Paul August ☎ 03:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some more categories to remove

message: I'm putting this comment here because I don't know where else to put it.  There is a piece of commercial software called Rationale which purports to allow diagramming of logical arguments.  It is cropping up in several wikipedia articles in category:logic, for example in ad hominem.  I find it confusing and unhelpful.  I tried removing it from one article, but it was back the next day, and I don't want to get into a revert war.  I think the logic group, that's us, should consider this software and vote on whether or not its inclusion in wikipedia is appropriate. Rick Norwood 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good list.  I'll try to work on some of these.  Meanwhile, I'd really like someone to sound off on my question at the top of this page.  I can hear the crickets chirping. Rick Norwood 12:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear a motion for a vote. Perhaps I'll make a page for this issue and publicize a vote. Gregbard 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Gregbard. Rick Norwood 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was distracted.  Go for it!  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale software 

message: How did the WikiProject Logic banners get changed into WikiProject Philosphy banners.  I think we need to revert those NOW, or perhaps the Project should just be deleted as absorbed into WikiProject Philosphy.  There's no way to tell which articles are considered within the scope, with the present banners and templates.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to fold up the contents to a directory under WP:PHIL. However, there should still be an interdiscipliary presence. There should be one place for phil, math, computer science, linguistics, etc. We just need to coordinate to make the overlap small, and make sure to cover everything under one or the other (math or phil). Gregbard 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After so much negative input about these banners, I decided to work in the opposite direction. I have been working on strengthening the philosophy project, and it's fields etc. I think we should just have two banners (not three) the math people should be responsible for their categories, the philosophy people will be responsible for theirs. We can sort out the common area, and anything neglected by both under wikiproject logic. 
*Mathematical logic worklist
*Philosophical logic worklist
Gregbard 00:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Logic Banner/WikiProject Philosophy Banner 

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic topics in logic
*List of basic discrete mathematics topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of List articles 

message: Just a heads up for anybody who might be interested in the discussion of the recient deletion of several Erdős number categories. The deletion review now in progress is going on here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7
The discussion that was sparked in the aftermath of the deletion, which eventually led to the Deletion Review being initiated, can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28
The archive of the discussion, which resulted in the decision to delete, may be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28#Erd.C5.91s_numbers
Two previous discussions that both resulted in keep, may be found below:
*Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 8#Erdős number categories
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9#Category:Erdős number 1
--Ramsey2006 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Review for Erdos number categories 

message: The first DRV resulted in a decision to overturn the deletion of the Erdos number categories. However, that DRV has since itself been overturned by the closing administrator at the request of SparsityProblem. 
There is a new DRV for the Erdos number categories here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 10#Category:Erdős numbers --Ramsey2006 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second DRV for Erdos number categories 

message: Please join the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: jeez, I'm sorry I missed that one. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating [[ampheck]] for deletion 

message: A somewhat famous mathematician has proposed to delete :Category:Metalogic. The category is perfectly wonderful. I see this as a part of the whole math-centric culture. I think it is seen as a threat or something. Silly. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have a valid point, or you may not. Not being a philosopher I don't know. But considering that as a result of your actions (which apparently have not been discussed before - correct me if I am wrong) a lot of mathematical articles are now in a category that bears a name that most mathematicians including many logicians have never heard before, the language you are using here is not appropriate. For all the others who wonder, like I did, what Gregbard is referring to: He probably means this justified complaint by Arthur Rubin on Gregbard's talk page, to which he replied in an entirely inappropriate way. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Metalogic]] 

message: I am looking for other editors to participate in a broad task force to organize Wikipedia's articles on Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and related topics. The current organization is quite idiosyncratic, and has been the subject of discussion before. The initial goal of the task force would be to outline the current structure of these articles (the topics covered by each and how they interconnect) and discuss improvements to this organization. If we are successful we will come out with a proposal that can be announced more widely. 
Participating in the task force would not require a large time commitment. If you are interested, please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic/Boolean algebra task force and add yourself to the list of editors. The page was created under WikiProject Logic only for convenience. I hope that I will be able to gather editors with a wide range of backgrounds to participate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boolean algebra task force 

message: I'd like to draw your attention to an issue in the definition of Decidability (logic), namely whether that definition should be based on the imprecise notion of "effective method", or the precise notion of "recursive computability". See Talk:Decidability (logic)#Precise and imprecise definitions.  --Lambiam 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue in the definition of Decidability (logic) 

message: The article on inference has fallen into disrepair; its last many revisions have been missing many of the syllogism examples, and no-one seems to have noticed. I've restored the examples from older revisions, and added one more example (valid reasoning from false premises to true conclusion). (see diff) However, I'm no expert, and this article needs a thorough revision by someone who knows the subject. -- The Anome (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inference 

message: This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist  10:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics