Talk:Strict conditional

message: I think that the example shown in this paper is slithgly misleading. The statement “the moon is made of cheese” used as the antecedent of all conditionals is typically false in all possible worlds that many are inclined to consider. While some people might believe that the moon is made of blue cheese, still this choice obscures the fact that strict conditionals can be used for facts that are assumed false but that would be more believable. For example, that the cervus elaphus canadensis is extinct is currently believed true, but yet one can consider the contrary as an actual possibility. I think that changing the antecedent to something that can be possible or not would improve the article. Suggestions? Comments? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the moon made of cheese?

message: Edited definition/explanation & added link to main article.  No need to say more about corresponding conditionals in this article, if indeed there is a need to mention them here at all.  A bit off-topic really, I would have thought. --Philogo 23:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: corresponding conditional

message: I have created an article for Logical hexagon and refactored a large amount of material contributed byUser:Jean KemperNN. The material is wonderful, but I think it is more appropriate in its own article.Greg Bard (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical hexagon 

message: Why does the article say, 'it is clearly not the case that 2 + 2 = 4 if Bill Gates graduated in medicine'? It seems to me that it clearly is the case. Ocanter (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this? 

message: This article has recently undergone massively large changes, without any preliminary discussion or review. I would request that subject matter experts in this area review these changes. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive undiscussed, much less agreed changes to this article 

message: As requested, and in order to reach agreement, I have began the BRD Process for this article. I am proposing to modify the article in order to ensure its completeness, accuracy, clarity and nonconfusion for future readers, and applicability to the appropriate fields of study (not just non-classical logic as the old version had been). This notably includes those fields of study that are known to use strict conditionals whether implicitly or explicity, but with different notation, and that are taught in many high school mathematics courses. Hanlon1755 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably some of the information you've added is usable, but every single line you've entered violated WikiFormat guidelines.  Propose changes here, before adding.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, the truth table should not be here, as it's not truth-functional.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRD Process 

message: Editors here may be interested in the related AfD discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic).—Machine Elf 1735 12:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic) 

message: (84.100.243.150 (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of strict implication given at the beginning of the article is the definition adopted by scholars and must be respected as such 

message: KNOLmnc 1 Crucial importance of the bilateral possible M(p), the third contrary fact represented in the logical hexagon of Robert Blanché applied to modal logic.
KNOLmnc 1 Traité de logique modale
KNOLmnc 1 About the main problem of modal logic. A formula of the strict implication of the fact q by the fact p: p ≡ Lq. The three ingredients of strict implication and particularly: ~p. M → M~q, the third one. p ≡ Lq seems to be the formula...
KNOLmnc 1 The three elements of p ≡ Lq, the strict implication of q by p. The definition to be found in the John Lyons of Semantics 1 must be drastically critized.
(86.75.111.166 (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, place the signature after your posting. How this message justifies insertion of a poorly formatted chunk of text loaned from the mindnewcontinentfrenchcorner.wordpress.com website? It is off-line currently (slashdot effect?), but I do not think that Google deceives me about the origin of the problematical text. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: BTW, could you first improve the :fr:Implication stricte article? I do not understand what do you propose; maybe I will able to understand better something in French (English and French are equally non-native languages to me). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: You confuse something. There were no edits in February 15, 2012. But I found the version of February 12. Is it your proposal? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Your sneaky habitude to [ alter old postings] is boring, Mr. Jean-François. Your habitude to make lengthy explanations of [ a simple thing expressed in only 8 digits] is also boring. I hope, this is the text you refer to. I would not log off nor change my user preferences in fr.wikipedia (I never use Paris time) because you are not smart enough to specify a direct URL. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks, now I understood your point. You assert that The True Strict Conditional is not , but something even stronger, which can be false if  is impossible. The answer is… not surprisingly…   no.Wikipedia is not interested in redefinition of already established concepts, at least while a redefinition attempt is not backed by serious researches published in peer-reviewed journals. Sorry, unless you can demonstrate a peer-reviewed paper where the “strict conditional” can be false for an impossible antecedent, your essays have not any chance in the article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Bon soir, Mr. Monteil. Votre nouveax sites personels? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful further reading 

message: This article says that C.I. Lewis proposed strict conditionals as an analysis for indicatives, but Will Starr's SEP article says "C.I. Lewis (1912, 1914) defended the strict conditional analysis of subjunctives". Part of me thinks that C.I. Lewis couldn't have made that work for counterfactuals/subjunctives with the tools that existed in his day. But I'd also be surprised if Will Starr got that wrong. I don't have the time or energy to look into this, but wanted to flag it in case somebody else had the relevant knowledge. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did C.I. Lewis intend them for counterfactuals too?