Talk:Logic/Archive 1

message: Archive-1 created Charles Stewart 07:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: Thinking about statistics and the frequentist formulation of confidence intervals ( The population parameter is "fixed but unknown") leads me to wonder if anyone has ever put the idea that something in a mathematical problem can be "given to be unknown" on a rigorous logical footing.  Suppose we have an a symbol p representing a a "quantity" in a mathematical problem, be it a statistical problem or otherwise. Some examples of thethings that we might be "given" about p are:
1. p is an unknown number.
2. p is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and std. dev.= 1
3. p is a normally distributed random variable with unknown mean and std. dev.= 1
4. p is a normally distributed random variable with unknown mean and unknown std. dev.
5. p is selected by a person who has flipped a fair coin. If the coin landed heads then he chose p to be an unknown but fixed number.  Otherwise p was chosen from a normal distribution with mean 0 and std. dev. 1.  How the coin landed is unknown.
(i.e. There is a 0.5 probability that p is "fixed but unknown" )
Lacking such a calculus, I , nevertheless attempt the following deductions:
If we are given 1) alone then an example of a valid conclusion is "The probability that p = 23.2 is either 1 or 0" (this follows famous textbook examples from statistics).  If we are given 2) alone then the previous conclusion is invalid.  
If we are given 3) alone then we may say "The probability that {the probability that p = 23.2 is either 0 or 1} is 0". 
If we are given 5) alone then I don't think the previous conclusion is valid.
 
I'm sure these examples suggest even more mind boggling ones that make the frequentist assumption look like simplicity itself.  Has some obscure branch of logic worked all this out for us?  (I'm not talking about Bayesian statistics, which involves adding additional assumptions.)
Stephen Tashiro
===Domain Theory===
Dana Scott's theory of domains should handle the above kinds of uncertainty to your satisfaction.  The essential idea is that it is a kind of theory of types that is naturally related to a logic without the principle of excluded middle.
Chalst 23:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Calculus Of Ignorance? 

message: Dana Scott's theory of domains should handle the above kinds of uncertainty to your satisfaction.  The essential idea is that it is a kind of theory of types that is naturally related to a logic without the principle of excluded middle.
Chalst 23:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Domain Theory

message: Should not the logic page include the Law of Identity as one of the three laws of classical logic? That is: A is A or A = A.  It seems to me that this law of Identity is crucial to the application of the Law of Non-Contracdictories and the Law of Excluded Middle in determining the truth or error of a proposition. Afterall, Logic really is the mechanism by which we pursue truth and distinguish it from error. 
Perhaps the three laws of logic could be more understandable to those who are not aquainted with them as follows:
Law of Identity: A is A, or A = A. Something (a proposition or a thing) is what it is. Example: An apple is an apple. However, all apples are not identical, and any particular apple is not any other particular apple. Stating the law is not without difficulty. For example, a paricular apple is only a single example within the broad spectrum of the class concept of "apple-ness." In this case, the law of identity is valid in making the detemination that, "this particular apple is an example of what is subsummed under the class concept of "apple-ness.""
Law of Non Contradiction: A is not non-A. Something is what it is and not what it is not. Example: Applying the Law of Identity, an apple is an apple. Then applying the Law of Non-Contradiction, an apple is not anything an apple is not.  The law does not preclude the possibility that an apple could become something else, applesauce, for instance, but that an apple cannot be an apple and applesauce at the same time.
Law of Excluded Middle: A is B or non-B. Usually, when considering propositions, the Law of Excluded Middle is applied by stating that the proposition P is either true or false, with no third possibility (tertium quid) allowed. However, in keeping with our "apple" example in explaining the first two laws, we could state that, "an apple is either a fruit or a non-fruit (a vegetable, or an animal)"
It seems that the application of the laws as given in the examples above have a direct bearing on what the could be considered "significant speech" and in resolving the ever present problem of communicating propositions "meaningfully" by addressing the "one within the many." 
The communication of a proposition "meaningfully" from one person to another is absolutely dependent upon the definitions of the terms in the minds of both. Since we've been using "apples" in our other examples, I'll stick with apples here. Unless both have the same class concept of what an apple is, then applying the Law of Non-Contradictories is meaningless.  For the term "apple" to have meaning and relevance, both the author of the proposition and the one to whom the proposition is communicated must have agreement about what consitutes the class concept of "apple-ness." The more agreement within the class concept, the more "meaningfullness" being communicated.
If both the author of the proposition and the one to whom it is communicated do not have a significant alignment  on Identify, then applying the Law of Non-Contraditories is of no value in determining the "truth" or "error" of the proposition and neither is the application of the Law of Excluded Middle.
----
I have removed this, which I don't understand, from the formal logic section.
:In the calculus of classes, disjunction elimination and conjunction elimination are also invalid, for, from the statement that the class a \cap b is null, we can't conclude that one of the classes a and b is null; and from the statement that the sum a \cup b is equal to the whole we cannot conclude that either is equal to the whole.  But these implications are true in propositional logic.
I don't see that it is consistent with the linked definitions, for one thing.
Charles Matthews 11:15, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some have considered classical logic to be just like a mathematical theory, and in particular the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle to be simply axioms of the theory, which have to be assumed without proof. In fact this is not so...
The reasoning in the "proofs" which follow that statement belong to something that I would characterize as meta-mathematics.  That is the "proofs" implicity assume that you know what is meant by the atoms "true" and "false".  But if you consider Aristotelian logic as a mathematical system then the atoms are only defined by their use in the two axioms.  In a mathematical system there is no way to define such basic terms as "true" and "false" without the use of axioms.
Since the "proofs" given are interesting on philisophical level, I don't think erasing them would be warrented, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to make it clear that the "proofs" given don't satisfy actual mathematical rigor. millerc 21:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of identity 

message: Could we collapse the sections on Multi-valued logic and Logic in Computer science into a single section, say specialized logics.  Also I prefer to use inference instead of reasoning in the section currently titled deductive and inductive reasoning. For example. inference could be procedural, i.e., apply Matlab to infer something.  I think also a sentence or two on the distinction (and also relations) between inference and logical argument is necessary.  CSTAR 16:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialized logics 

message: I'm not sure I agree with the opposition of rhetoric (and dialectic) to logic.  The relation between the is complex, that's clear, but to say it is one opposition is also misleading.CSTAR 14:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so, and a brief discussion of the Organon should make this clear ---- Charles Stewart 15:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialectic and rhetoric 

message: The article currently states:
::Both the statement of Hilbert's Program and it's refutation by Gödel depended upon their work establishing the second area of mathematical logic, the application of mathematics to logic in the form of proof theory. 
Is model theory usually considered part of proof theory?
: No, but in context, Hilbert's program centred on the role of consistency statements, which are considered a part of proof theory.  Goedel's completeness theorem states a key result in model theory, but the machinery he used to prove it is proof-theoretic (the original theorem used esentially a proof search algorithm).
If so that's news to me. Model theory certainly is mathematics applied to logic. 
:: If proof theory and model theory have been the foundation of mathematical logic, they have been but two of the four pillars of the subject. Set theory originated in the study of the infinite by Cantor, and it has been the source of many of the most challenging and important issues in mathematical logic, from Cantor's theorem, through the status of the Axiom of Choice and the question of the independence of the continuum hypothesis, to the modern debate on large cardinal axioms.
These seem like fairly subjective evaluations.  Are we sure it's four pillars and say not...sixty five pillars? (I'm being a little facetious here purposely to spice up the discussion) . I concede that these boundaries are really murky, but is set theory really logic? 
:Indeed, it is subjective, so maybe a remark to that end is in order.  But it's a pretty standard way of dividing up the field since Barwise's 1977 Handbook of Math. logic.
----
:: Ok that is an important fact and probably should be stated here (or in some referenced article).CSTAR 15:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It failed according to its own criteria, but as I said, there was a silver lining ---- Charles Stewart 15:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S.  Actually as I said earlier I like very much what you added, it's just that I'm not sure the limits of mathematics and logic are adequately discussed (and I don't claim to know the answer either)CSTAR 04:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical logic 

message: I think the article still gives short-shrift to Dialectic and rhetoric.  It ignores the work of Chaim Perelman and Tyteca-Olbrechts on argument. This is briefly mentioned in logical argument.
:I've put a comment on the talk page of that article.  There is a section, so far with no body, that I created, entitled dialectical logic, which seems the natural home for the work of Perelman & Tyteca-Olbrechts as you have described them. ---- Charles Stewart 13:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialectics and rhetoric 

message: is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: I see that the article has a new, up-to-date reference for "Logic is the study of arguments", from the 2002 book by the Catholic philosopher, Harry Gensler, of the John Carroll University, a Jesuit theological college.
Modern Catholic teaching of logic has perhaps been unduly neglected in Wikiedpia's treatment of logic, but it is certainly not mainstream.  What, precisely, is wrong with the definition in the Collins Encyclopedia, which was edited by the highly accomplished scholar, David Crystal?  What is the attraction of this offbeat definition of logic, that we have to spend so much effort furnishing it with references?  Is Harry Gensler really being held up as such a great authority that can tell us that Tarski's characterisation of logic as concerning non-subject specific consequence has been overturned?
Perhaps this article will attract attention from a competent editor who can see beyond their personal views on what logic is, and see how experts use the term.  Until then, look out for my 3rd nonconstructive complaint. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd nonconstructive complaint 

message: I propose that the description of Logic should be fundamentally altered. To say that logic is 'the tool for distinguishing between the true and the falce' is to say that there is an observer who uses 'the tool' to judge what is true and what is falce. This does not say what that 'tool' is. That which is observed in the observers consciousness in the 'now' is a static picture. Using logic the observer, under the influence of motivation, alters that picture for another picture in the next 'now'. The change occurs in time. Both pictures are static at the time of observation. What is it that directed the alteration of the first picture to the second picture ? The observed picture in the first 'now' consists of parts. Each part is an independent truth defining the whole of the picture. The same applies to the picture in the second 'now', after change. Some of the truths of the description are common for pictures in both observations. The more of the truths of the description are common the stronger is the logical connection. Logic is like magnet. It has variable strength depending on how many truths about the two interacting  pictures are common. KK (78.146.68.198 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic-the tool. 

message: I think some of the comments have been moved I found an old contribution in the talk page of the disambiguation, but I amsure it was originally written on the main article. Can someone please explain, in their own words, the history of the article and what happened? Kathybramley (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation talk 

message: There's plenty to do! Here are some resources to start:
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/early-modern-india/
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohist-canons/
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-india/
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
Dan Cottrell (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand discussion of China and India? 

message: A new user has added an intriguing picture of a so-called "logic garnet", claiming that it's an "early device used to determine the logical consistency of a given claim".  We don't have any article directly on this, but we do have one on Shea Zellweger, who seems to be the inventor.  Zellweger was born in 1925, so the thing can't be that "early" really.
I don't mind the picture, and a mention, somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure that an idiosyncratic notation deserves to be placed so prominently at the top.  There are lots of notational systems that have accumulated followings of devoted fans but never really caught on in the wider world (e.g. Sheffer stroke, Laws of Form).  --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Logic garnet" 

message: Should this topic be discussed ?
https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/absolutes.htm
i think that its something that could be included in this topic, otherwise maybe it should have its own page 
Aperseghin (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE it seems to be touched on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought Aperseghin (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical Absolutes 

message: Under Construction...
Science(knowledge), is acquired by all the entities in the diagram.
Philosophy (love of wisdom), I believe 'love of wisdom' is inherent in acquiring knowledge,
as otherwise, there is no reason to want knowledge. To get knowledge, you must first, have wanted it, in the first-place. (the purpose/knowledge wanted is irrelevant)
In an abstract way, (although the concepts are already abstract...) to have knowledge, you must at least have be able to 'know' something...or, anything... What is something/anything? The/a universe - what makes up a universe? The universe is made up of, 'physics', and 'meta-physics'.       (MST UPDATE)
Which I then class into two separate forms of base-logic. Rational-logic, and irrational-logic.
or intelligence, or intellect... (MST UPDATE)  
My source? Hopefully, the people of Wikipedia see it as credible...
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickid123 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My logic (Open to debate) 

message: Logic is how we humans think. If it is not logical, then it is questionable. Thanks.{{--General concensus2012 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love logic and simply being here on Earth as a savvy human 

message: I have to say I kind of disagree with some of the policies that wikipedia encourages for this article, verifiability in particular (not a fan of Popper). I have also, unintentionally overridden the discussion that has been going on behind the scenes here by just editing. So I am posting this to give yall a heads up and to say sorry, please edit my writing, but at least take it into account.
I was reading the bit at the end of Rejecting Logical Truths and I was really disappointed with the critiques given of Nietzsche. They were clearly partisan and I think the tone and content was pretty weak. Ive gone ahead and responded to each critique. I got quite angry with the Russell one in particular so that should probably be changed. But still i think this really needs to be looked at because the way it stood it seemed like some kind of definite rejection of the rejection but which is not convincing at all.
I also offered my kind of interpretation which I think would stem from a kind of positivistic attitude although i myself am really into the whole frankfurt critique of instrumental rationality and the positivists that are associated with that... So ye im also against imparciality. I think the article should vehemently argue for the competeing positions but allow them all up there! This may look contradictory but im all about paraconsistency!
Lots of love!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.155.82.44 (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejecting Logical Truths 

message: The first section under "The study of logic" divides logic into four categories: informal, formal, symbolic and mathematical, whereof all but the first links to mathematical logic, where they are listed as synonyms. It also seems to be more confusion over these three terms later in the article. I'm not sure exactly what are the most recognized relationship between these terms, but we need to try to make it more consistent. –St.nerol (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, that section only provides references to the content of each of the four categories, not to the fact that there are four categories.  We need a broader reference.  In my experience, the examples are good ones, but we need a reference that says so.  In any case, while all mathematical logic is formal, not all formal logic is mathematical.  Some formal logic is Aristotelian. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical/Symbolic/Formal Logic 

message: Logic refers to Reason, Reason loops back to Logic. Right in the first sentence in both cases. I understand, these are hard to define. But someone have to try harder. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.176.240 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular reference 

message: the original article discuss logic from a non-scientific method of view which makes it hypothesis and as hypothesis its not suitable for practical purposes.
if somebody interested in this article from a scientific method point of view please send me an email.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2403:E989:9D97:9A63:C19E:C76D (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  limits 

message: Please simply consider to be published as article after "SO MANY YEARS of first publishing", would be more logical for what is considered as a TAG as "Original Work"! THANKS!
My facebook Authors page is: https://www.facebook.com/BookPureLogic ! First published Canada 2008; USA 2009. So plus 10 years would make it 2018 and 2019, before WIKIPEDIA could consider the article about my Book! IS THIS SENSIBLE? THANK AGAIN!
(General concensus2012 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your book does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria - we aren't here to provide free promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with AndyTheGrump above  the book is hardly on logic as "the use and study of valid reasoning". I had a look at your book at amazon, I could not read the bibliography or index , but what I did see didn't impress me, which chapters are over syllogisms or predicate logic WillemienH (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Our personal opinions of books aren't really relevant though. What matters is whether they meet our notability criteria - and for that we'd need to see significant coverage in third-party published reliable sources, for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: My Book is now an Author in Facebook - Is my Book still to be considered as not History ?

message: Most of the sources sited have been out dated, I believe it would be better to update some of its definitions from new books, to name a few: 
"Logic- is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an argument adequately support its conclusion."
"Sound Argument- a valid argument in which all of the premises are true."
"Valid Argument- one in which is necessary that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true."
Source: Santiago. LOGIC CUSTOM. McGraw-Hill Create (tm). p. 66. .  14:49, 9 February 2015‎ HalleyRoséM 
:I could not agree with that, given that you are mostly thinking in terms of deduction.  SaundersLane (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Information 

message: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: logic
1 : a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning; 
2 : sound reasoning
;
3 : the arrangement of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer
http://dictionary.reference.com/
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts. 
What is first or of higher level as to which is needed first? 
Is it the problem of the Hen and the Egg?
Can Science be without logic? Yes it can, though it should not happen!
Can logic be without Science? No and Yes! Logic and true "sound" reasoning, is Science! 
But good reasoning logic can be by itself, and not be Academic recognized Science! 
Though generally good sound reasoning logic, does proceed from much Science, theoretical and practical learning! 
So half truths and half logic, or not complete logic, can or have been made Science in a few cases!
But this does not happen to true complete(pure) logic!
Hence I would establish LOGIC and "complete/pure logic", thought, ideas, imagination, to be first, as the "software" and "hardware" of a computer! That then can be established in firm accepted Academia Science, with "strict" Rules 
and Laws developed(particular specific sciences) and that can be experimented and proven!
Much of Logic and "metaphysics", does not have to be proven as Science might apparently require! 
The power of Inference and Deduction enter into the game of sound reasoning or illogical reasoning!
If this is helpful, please feel free to use it!
Thanks!
(--General concensus2012 (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is first? Science or Logic? 

message: I want to put some energy into solving a number of issues with the article as it stands.  The article has not impoved much since 2005 and has become weaker in a number of areas, so one of the things I will be doing is going over the differences in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logic&diff=cur&oldid=28701908 and restoring the older text where it is clearer or more correct than the current version. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Thought disorder links here (probably unintentionally?) via a redirect through "illogicality" into "logic". 
Illogicality as a symptom of a mental disorder is a relatively concrete and narrow thing that is *somewhat* related to high church "Logic", but it is also importantly distinct.
I think a better arrangement would to EITHER (1) have a full article for Illogicality as a symptom instead of the current redirect OR (2) there should be a subsection in this article about Illogicality as a symptom of thought disorder.  
A good template for how Illogicality should look (whether as a section or a whole article) is the Alogia article which covers a related symptom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:903:506C:9E8:7BB4:79C5 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could have a section on logic and rationality, with a subsection title Illogicality that documents this condition. Would this be a good thing? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I've changed ‎the title of the Deductive and inductive reasoning, and abductive inference subsection to Logic and rationality, which now needs rewriting and can now discuss alogia/illogicality. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I've created an article as the main article of the Logic and rationality subsection, and am about to start adding a discussion of illogicality. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illogicality (part of "thought disorder") and Schizophrenia 

message: "A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. "  I remember saying something like this. Do any other textbooks mention this? The standard one is 'premises not true with conclusion false'. Peter Damian (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your recent work on the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: I'd like us to get the article into shape to nominate it for good article status.  There are a few things that need to be done before we nominate it:
1. The readability of several sections could do with improvement.
2. The article needs to be better referenced.
3. The article could use a few more illustrations.
I value all assistance with these.— Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Illustrations for logic?  I will try and put some time aside for the words. Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Propositional logic lends itself naturally to illustration by Venn diagrams and predicate logic by analogy can be illustrated with one of Peirce's existential graphs. Term logic could be illustrated with the square of opposition. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article status

message: "According to the modern view, the fundamental form of a simple sentence is given by a recursive schema, involving logical connectives, such as a quantifier with its bound variable, which are joined by juxtaposition to other sentences, which in turn may have logical structure."
What does this mean? Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the order in which the concepts are introduced: hopefully the text is now easier to digest. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Readability

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528221822/http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/History%20of%20Western%20Philosophy.pdf to http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/History%20of%20Western%20Philosophy.pdf/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121054130/http://logic-law.com/index.php?title=Propositional_Logic to http://logic-law.com/index.php?title=Propositional_Logic
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015094223/http://durendal.org:8080/lcsl/ to http://durendal.org:8080/lcsl/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion"
I don't think this explains much, because "logic" was previously defined in terms of inference. So, it ends up being circular. The best definition of logic I've heard is the study of "truth-preserving inference."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited. Thanks to you for pointing out that issue. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid inference 

message: Hello!
There had been a german logician, who was able to explain logic good. (I don't know whether he is still alive. I don't think so.) I think he is not very famous, but I don't know why. The pitty for english-speaking people, who are accidently interested in his theory, is, that his book "Grundlagen der strengen Logik" is only available in german. So if you are interested, here is a part of his work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=842329272#Strict_syllogistic
I really think he is right with every single word, but i don't dare to change the article for logic. I am curious about your opinions.
--123qweasd (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strenge Logik by Walther Brüning 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/logic/Logical-systems. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  MER-C 18:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Does anyone know why the Philosophical logic section doesn't display the title just below the citation box? -Theklan (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look at it. My guess is that it is something to do with the Peirce quote box: these have tricky behaviours. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I think I fixed it by changing the quote box alignment from left to center - as far as I can tell the quote box looks exactly the same, but the missing title now shows up. Burritok (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical logic not displaying title 

message: I think Avicienna's Contribution to the study of logic, makes persia relevant. In fact, that makes all Muslim philosophers relevant. The main article unfairly makes no mention of any Muslim philosopher.
:The history section used to have a paragraph on medieval Islamic logic which was deleted without reason in 2019, which I have reinserted together with a sentence indicating the influence of Islamic logicians on Christian logicians in medieval times. I don't think the fact that Avicenna was Persian is any more relevant to this article than the fact that, say Abelard was French. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Persia, to ancient civilizations studying logic. 

message: The shortdesc for this page defines the subject as "The study of inference and truth," while the hatnote has "the systematic study of the form of arguments." These strike me as pretty different things, so I thought I'd point it out here in case any subject experts want to alter one. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I switched in favor of the shortdesc. The two aren't really that different, but the shortdesc gives a more general characterization. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are, in fact, very different. They represent rival, incompatible views on the subject matter of logic. Few logicians think their subject encompasses the study of truth in its broadest sense. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Charles Stewart that "the study of truth" is too broad as a characterization of logic. For example, all the theories of truth are usually not directly studied when studying logic. I would suggest to use "Study of correct reasoning" since this is more specific but still broad enough to capture both formal and informal logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with that for the shortdesc, but I do think the article itself needs to lean in the direction of "big tent" (while summarizing more specific conceptions of the topic, as in the current version). Botterweg14 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

text: @Phlsph7 @Botterweg14 What about simply "study of reasoning"? Again, I'm a non-expert, so I'm not sure if that is no good for some reason, but it seems better to me than "study of correct reasoning" from a big-tent perspective. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "study of reasoning" belongs to psychology since it includes good and bad reasoning. See for example the first paragraph of Philosophy_of_logic#General_characteristics. So we need a qualifier like "correct", "good", or "valid". We could use "arguments" or "thinking" instead of "reasoning". Phlsph7 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "correct" is definitely doing some key work here as @Phlsph7 points out, so I'd favour just leaving it as is. Any shortdesc-length definition is gonna be reductive, and I think "study of correct reasoning" is an acceptable balance of tradeoffs. Botterweg14 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortdesc vs hatnote 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Logika and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Logika until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Logika" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :There are nine entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. The section needs trimming.
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . -- Otr500 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply: Hello and thanks, The appendices have been a dumping ground for a long time. If a link is not considered "high-value" then the criteria ELNO (#1): . I generally don't think about it much, unless there are over three, and leave it up the article regulars.  --  Otr500 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links