Talk:Indicative conditional

message: In the next day or two I'm going to carry out the suggestion I made above (half a year ago), splitting the content of this page between Indicative conditional and Material conditional.
Here is my strategy for doing it, in order to preserve the page histories:  I will move this page (Logical conditional) to Indicative conditional (i.e., change the title of this page).  I will then move most of the content from the page to Material conditional (which is currently a redirect).  Finally, I will change the redirect that will be left here after moving it to point to Conditional instead.  This will bring wiki's nomenclature into consistency with contemporary professional use. KSchutte 03:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will then, of course, update Conditional to include Indicative conditional, along with a small description of the differences between each kind of conditional listed on that page. KSchutte 03:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long overdue 

message: Connection with other concepts
The logical conditional, and particularly the material conditional, is closely related to inclusion (for sets), subsumption (for concepts), or implication (for propositions). It also has formal properties analogous to those of the mathematical relation less than or more exactly \leq, especially the relation of not being symmetrical. 
In the conceptual interpretation, when a and b denote concepts, the relation a \in b signifies that the concept a is subsumed under the concept b; that is, it is a species with respect to the genus b. From the extensive point of view, it denotes that the class of a's is contained in the class of b's or makes a part of it; or, more concisely, that "All a's are b's". From the comprehensive point of view it means that the concept b is contained in the concept a or makes a part of it, so that consequently the character a implies or involves the character b. Example: "All men are mortal"; "Man implies mortal"; "Who says man says mortal"; or, simply, "Man, therefore mortal".
In the propositional interpretation, when a and b denote propositions, the relation a \Rightarrow b signifies that the proposition a implies or involves the proposition b, which is often expressed by the hypothetical judgement, "If a is true, b is true"; or by "a implies b"; or more simply by "a, therefore b". We see that in both interpretations the relation may be translated approximately by "therefore".
Remark. -- Such a relation is a proposition, whatever may be the interpretation of the terms a and b.
Consequently, whenever a \Rightarrow relation has two like relations (or even only one) for its members, it can receive only the propositional interpretation, that is to say, it can only denote an implication.
A relation whose members are simple terms (letters) is called a primary proposition; a relation whose members are primary propositions is called a secondary proposition, and so on.
From this it may be seen at once that the propositional interpretation is more homogeneous than the conceptual, since it alone makes it possible to give the same meaning to the copula in both primary and secondary propositions.
:I took this out after dividing the pages and I don't know what to do with it.  It seems like a math student's take on logic rather than a logician's explanation.  Anyone who sees fit to re-add it would be encouraged to give it some context. KSchutte 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed. 

message: The false claim is: (quote) The standard definition of implication allows us to conclude that, since the sun is made of gas, 3 is a prime number. (end quote) 
The standard definition omits restrictions on the antecedent and consequent, however, the proper way to teach introductory logic is together with the fallacies. The claim I quoted is an example of False Cause, and in a well-taught logic course, by the time students are introduced to material implication they have first practised rejecting fallacies. 
Thus forming: 
A = the sun is made of gas
B = 3 is a prime number
given input: Evaluate A implies B.
correct output: Reject request for evaluation based on False Cause. 
In Friendship,
Jennifer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.47.131 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a false and misleading claim in the article. 

message: I added a no footnote tag as the article uses only general references. Otr500 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No footnotes