Talk:Negation

message: The internet smilies section doesn't really belong in an article about negation.  While the smiley is created using a symbol for negation, it has nothing to do with the concept of negation, which is the topic of the article. 18.62.4.221 15:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because there doesn't seem to be a proper page about the ¬ character, which is what I was looking for when I found this article... --Beeurd (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  emoticon 

message: Earlier today QQ moved this page to logical inequality, with as far as I can tell no prior discussion. I've now moved the page back. This is the second time that QQ has moved this page there. The first time the page was moved back by Lowellian. In my view this is a highly inappropriate name for this page, since the article also talks about  term negation as used in grammar. What might be a good thing would be to create separate pages for the "negation (grammar)" and "negation (logic)" or "logical negation" and make this a disambiguation page, however this would have to be discussed and agreed to here first.
Please no further moves of this page without discussion and agreement here.
Paul August ☎ 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Separating page is a good idea, but I don't think it is possible. The main reason is that people will revert back after doing this!!! In my opinion, if you think moving article EACH TIME requires discussion, you should talk to the committee of wikipedia. But I respect with your action, don't worry. QQ 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I'd support the split into "negation (grammar)" and "negation (logic)", making "Negation" a disambiguation page.  That would make the other two links (album and comic) less obtrusive at the top.  Eric Qel-Droma 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also support splitting the article into two separate pages on grammar and logic/mathematics; not sure that mathematical negation and logical negation require separate treatment.  Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re move of page to [[logical negation]] 

message: JA: Oppose for now.  First off, negation (grammar) does not make sense, as negation is a semantic topic, not a purely syntactic one.  The classical distinction would make it negation (rhetoric), and that big an umbrella would give folks rheum to discuss just about anything that comes to mind.  Maybe someday, maybe soon, but right now the article is not big enough to justify it, and mostly needs to be better organized internally, say with a subhead for "rhetorical considerations".  Jon Awbrey 15:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not just a question of article size. I see it as more a question of utility, having separate articles would allow other articles to link with more specificity. Paul August ☎ 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One other problem is that we really are not talking about separate subjects here.  Grammatical negation clearly relates to logical negation; and various other sorts of negation, such as negation in mathematics or negation in computer programming, are likewise aspects of the same phenomenon: all involve the use of symbols to either flag statements as being contrary to fact, or what to do if something turns out to be not the case.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split

message: This article is all very well, but if someone (like my freshman calculus students, say) wants some help in understanding what negation is, this will leave them more confused. I just added a helpful sentence in the preamble, pointing out that negation is a perfectly natural thing to do and formalizes something we do in everyday language.
This also needs some examples. I'll add some if I have time.
Ewjw 07:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical! 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Didn't lingo (director) use this symbol? If I may ask. 71.90.128.212 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lingo Programming 

message: The symbol used in the article is new to me; so far, I was certain that negation was symbolized by a tilde (~) - at least two books I have read use this notation. Perhaps we should add a small note that the tilde is sometimes used too? Korodzik (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't ~ for Bitwise NOT in C/C++?  The logical NOT would be ! 80.177.58.134 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen the tilde being used to mean aproximate or aproximatly, as in " a day has ~24 hours" or in some programming language (i don't remember which exactly) combined with the equal sign "~=" to mean aproximatly equal (used with floats, it returns true if the two values are less than a predefined margin of error apart from each other), kinda like how !=, >= and <= came to be. --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilde 

message: Quoth the article: "So, if statement A is true, then ¬A (pronounced "not A") would therefore be false; and conversely, if ¬A is true, then A would be false." I'm not certain, but wouldn't that be the contrapositive, not the converse? --Daniel Draco (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Semantics Issue? 

message: Negation is defined here for a two-valued Boolean logic, using some kind of sets. I do not think this definition is general enough. Later in the article you find references to intuitionist logic, where there may be more than two values, and of course no sets. I believe the beginning of this article should be reworked, to be more professional. Vlad Patryshev (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Definition 

message: ⌐ redirects to this article. Does this character have a meaning different to ¬? --Abdull (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ⌐? 

message: I came to this article looking for information on the "¬" character, not just its meaning, but also things like its origin, name, how people write it when not using a computer, typewritter etc, why it is present in the Abnt2 keyboard layout for AltGr keypresses but isn't seen in most other layouts and so on. Could someone expand this article talking about the ¬ symbol itself, or create it's own article please? --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ¬ symbol itself? 

message: Someone has added comments into this section, with . Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to clean this up myself. Needs attention from an editor with the right technical knowledge. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributivity 

message: The definition of Negation in the article is to be true when its operand is false. "FALSE" however is defined as the negation of TRUE, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_(logic). These definitions are therefore mindlessly circular and meaningless. 88.203.90.14 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No proper Definition  

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ¬. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¬ listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: ⌙ redirects here, but the article doesn't explain what ⌙ is used for.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ⌙ redirects here 

message: It would be useful to list details of text encoding for (at least) Unicode : U+2310 - Reversed not sign (⌐); and U+00AC - Not sign (¬). In addition it would be good to mention other encodings UTF-8, CP437 / extended ASCII (#169 & #170).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACED.wiki (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add character encoding details for symbols. 

message: Beliefs 41.114.198.255 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life oreatation 

message: The redirect 不 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 03:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:不]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]