Talk:Soundness

message: I've removed the Strategy section, as it is out of place.  The topic title states the page is about informal logic, not Software agents.  Perhaps a link to a relevant intelligent agents page might be appropriate (if that is what the section was about that is, as there was no context).  The section read "A strategy is sound for an agent if, and only if, it never dictates an illegal move for the agent." Ling, 82.71.98.21 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agent Strategy

message: The content of this article is contradicted by an authority.  See Talk:Logical_argument#RV_20040302.27s_edit for details. ---- Charles Stewart 13:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: This page can be viewed as a definition. It is consistent with other usage. IF the definition is qualified by other considerations, you are welcome to annotate the term with a parenthetical qualifier and insert references to other related terms which have a different set of conventions. Ancheta Wis 04:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still disputed, I'm afraid.  You might have taken a closer look at my reasons for disputing this on Talk:logical argument.  Look there for the renewed discussion. ---- Charles Stewart 12:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ancheta. The article is not disputed by any credible source I've ever come across -- it is simply standard usage of 'sound' as applied to (i)arguments and (ii)proof procedures (and sometimes (iii)systems as whole). Charles, if you can provide sources as evidence to the contrary, please do so. Otherwise the content is not disputed in any reasonable sense of that word.Nortexoid 02:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Countered

message: I have no problems with the current definition, but i think there's another common use of this term: the `soundness' of a system says that anything that can be derived in the system is indeed true (which is obviously desirable, but not always easy to prove :)). After looking at soundness, one usually looks at completeness, which considers whether or not all true statements can be derived in the system. It might be worth considering adding this definition to the page? (better worded than i just did, of course :)) -- Raboof
:That definition is already included in the article: "A proof procedure (e.g. natural deduction) for a logic is sound if it proves only valid formulas (also tautologies)". Nortexoid 00:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I simply seem to have overlooked that. It might be nice to add the following clarification there: `This is shown by proving that any statement that can be derived with the proof procedure, is indeed logically true. Formally: a system is sound when if "X1...Xn ⊢ Y", then also "X1...Xn ⊨ Y". Shall I add that? --Raboof 12:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  other definitions 

message: Spin-off discussion, can be discarded imho. --Raboof 12:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But Kurt Gödel proved that systems that are stronger than first order logic or set theory are incomplete. That is another article. (So there is a bound on such systems.) Ancheta Wis 12:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is irrelevant. There are many sound but incomplete systems. Nortexoid 00:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  completeness 

message: Couldn't we just merge this with validity and call it validity and soundness? It seems unnecessary to have a separate article. Richard001 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather see this merged into Validity, and the article now called Soundness theorem moved here, with a hat note "For soundness of arguments in informal logic, see Validity. See also the section Argument (logic)#Valid arguments.  --Lambiam 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but how can you say which word is more important? If I can make an argument by analogy I might compare this situation with inductive arguments, where cogency and strength don't have their own articles, and probably shouldn't (strength doesn't exist at all). However, if we are to follow your suggested naming for this merge, the other one should be called 'strength (argument)' or something like that if we want to be consistent (do we?). In any case, I'll slap some merge templates up. Richard001 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: oppose merge --Although, I am somewhat open to the proposal to merge both into one substantial article:Validity and soundness, as they are conceptually very related. I think there may be certain areas in which one or the other term is more appropriate. However, I think we should merge Soundness theorem and Soundness. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Worthy of a separate article?

message: Is it really necessary for two articles on this. They are the same concept. I would think a lot of articles need to link to this. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal:[[Soundness theorem]]

message: It is not clear that the soundness of argument and logic system are two different things. Though the article contains two subsections and careful reading of the Intro implies that, it is not articulated explicitly. I can only conclude it from the fact that intro says that two definitions are sorta related but the article nowhere explains how. I have created corresponding question in the stackexchange but could not decipher the answer either. --Javalenok (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconciling two definitions of soundness 

message: Ought there be a section on the operational aspects in so far as they cause problems in design, test, and, later, usage of computational systems which are now so central to our lives (albeit, in many case, dangerously so)? 
If so, it could point to this article. ACM Communications -- In Defense of Soundiness: A Manifesto. This subject (Soundiness) deserves its own page, perhaps. jmswtlk (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone reading later -- this page is really about the logical concept, not the usage in formal methods and program analysis. I think it would be reasonable to include a pointer to that page. More generally, it might be good to include a section on the usages of soundness more generally in computer science. It does have its roots in the logical concept, I would say. Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational aspects