Talk:Logical disjunction

message: I wanted to suggest to add "The notation was introduced by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead." to the notations section. Since I'm a co-author of the cited paper, I shouldn't do it myself. Richard Zach (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation addition 

message: a <or> b = a+b - ab ?!?   
Please put it into words, esp. why it is on the top of the page.
=== Defining Disjunction With Arithmetic ===
Isn't it idiotic to define logical functors using arithmetic? This presupposes the definitions of arithmetic operations, not to mention a number system and seems wholly inappropriate in the context of logic.
:Having covered arithmetic disjunctions at university many years ago I was looking for them here, maybe hoping for more detail. In maths they take the form - 
:If x in range n Then y = f1(x) Else y = f2(x) . In maths they are often considered extremely poisonous because they create points of infinite rate of change where the rules of calculus break down, they make proof and logic 'impure' for the same reason. As I understand it they are often regarded as sticking plasters fixing over broken areas and are found everywhere in some places- like trigonometry, or anywhere where a lot of infinities occur. - My point is that they obviously need a page. Lucien86 (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's that upmost expression supposed to mean? 

message: Isn't it idiotic to define logical functors using arithmetic? This presupposes the definitions of arithmetic operations, not to mention a number system and seems wholly inappropriate in the context of logic.
:Having covered arithmetic disjunctions at university many years ago I was looking for them here, maybe hoping for more detail. In maths they take the form - 
:If x in range n Then y = f1(x) Else y = f2(x) . In maths they are often considered extremely poisonous because they create points of infinite rate of change where the rules of calculus break down, they make proof and logic 'impure' for the same reason. As I understand it they are often regarded as sticking plasters fixing over broken areas and are found everywhere in some places- like trigonometry, or anywhere where a lot of infinities occur. - My point is that they obviously need a page. Lucien86 (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Disjunction With Arithmetic 

message: a <or> b = 1 - (1-a)(1-b) = (a-1)(1-b) + 1
70.190.166.108 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulas that don't duplicate a, b 

message: The output side is too pointy and straight sided - other wikipedia articles show a different form for the gate symbol and should probably be used so as to be consistant.
ChardingLLNL 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article logic gate is more appropriate for discussion of variants, since this article is about the abstract logical concept. The diagram should still be consistent though. Dcoetzee 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR gate symbol is not in accordance with MIL-STD-806b 

message: maybe there should be a disambiguation so as to offer a redirect to Søren Kierkegaard's book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.130.34.235 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a disambiguation? 

message: I have been working on all of the logical operators recently. I would like to see a consistent format for them. There is a wikiproject proposal for this at:
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Logical_Operators. Also see Talk:Logical connective.
I would like to see the logical, grammatical, mathematical, and computer science applications of all of the operators on the single page for each of those concepts. 
Gregbard 08:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed project 

message: We should rename the article to "Inclusive Or", in accordance to Exclusive or.
More people understand what it means (articles like "water" are called "water", because it is understood by all, while "dihydrogen monoxide" is not)
Most people understand "Inclusive Or", but few will understand "logical disjunction".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicardAnufriev (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, "inclusive or" is much more uncommon and confusing, since no one refers to it as the "inclusive or" except specifically to draw a comparison with the exclusive or. The general and common term in both mathematical logic and computer science for the subject of this article is "logical disjunction". —Lowellian (reply) 21:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename it to Inclusive Or 

message: As far as I can tell, a disjunctor can be either a botanical structure between conidia, or kind of electrical circuit-breaker. I don't think it has anything to do with logical disjunction. Equinox (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think "disjunctor" should redirect here 

message: The information on the right (below "definition: x + y") and the table in the article show the values of its truth tables in reverse --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  truth table: 0111 vs TTTF 

message: You renamed this article to "Disjunction (logical connective)". I have no idea why, and I think it should be moved back. You should have at least brought it up on the talk page before. (And please do not rename Logical conjunction.) Watchduck (quack) 21:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In most textbooks of logic, “disjunction” is the most standard name of the connective which is used most frequently, and “alternation” "logical or" “logical sum” “logical addition” “inclusive disjunction” “inclusive alternation” "inclusive or" “weak disjunction” “weak alternation” are sometimes seen literally too. While I seldom see “logical disjunction” literally which may be because disjunction itself is logical or used as a connective possibly only in the subject related to logic. The case of conjunction is similar while it's not successful to rename "Logical conjunction" into "Conjunction (logical connective) last time.  see the comments here.TennisFans (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason the title shouldn't be simply "disjunction"? That's the most standard term and since that page is currently a redirect to this one, it doesn't seem like anybody's disputing primary topic. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason might be that the main (or even all?) articles about junctors should follow a unique naming scheme, and e.g. Conjunction leads to a disambiguation page. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of the reason that I rename the article as "Disjunction (logical connective)". TennisFans (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Logical disjunction'' was a good name