Talk:Definite description

message: It has been suggested that this article (definite descriptions) be merged with the main article "theory of descriptions".  The "theory of descriptions" entry also includes information about indefinite descriptions, among other things.  It would also be good to get the criticism info from here over to there, since it applies to Russell's general theory.  I, for one, agree that it should be merged.  Any objections?  --Jaymay 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about how definite descriptions do get a sort of separate treatment in logic sometimes, independent of Russell's analysis. Perhaps we should just have Russell's analysis breifly discussed here, but have the details and the criticisms of his analysis over at Theory of descriptions. Any thoughts? People would have to add to this article though. Otherwise, it will only have the short bit about Russell and the symbolic form. - Jaymay 20:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completed what I suggested in the previous paragraph. No one objected and it seems like a good idea. If more content doesn't build up here for this entry, then that can maybe be fully merged into the Theory of descriptions entry.  But, I figured this will be good for now. - Jaymay 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: "Since there is no present King of France, the phrase fails to refer, and so the sentence is neither true nor false, but meaningless."
I do not think that Strawson would say that the sentence is meaningless. As I understand it, the sentence has meaning in and of itself, but the utterance of the sentence cannot be given a truth value. Strawson would certainly maintain that the sentence was meaningful even if its use did not express a complete proposition.
--Rubie 16:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have deleted "but meaningless". Also, a bit more detail on Strawson's analysis would be good, if anyone feels like adding it.
--Matt9090 24 Jan. 2006
The article says to refer to the bottom about Philosophers who considered the term meaningless, but there is nothing at the bottom relating to it.  Am I missing something?Jeek X (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: I'm sorry but there's no way mathematic sentence structure can be considered worthy of common knowledge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.150.95 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This is absolute nonsense!

message: Someone made a cutesy "present king of France" graphic... AnonMoos 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be the fleurs-de-lis (royal) rather than the tricolor (republican)? —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Louis Philippe ruled under the Tricolor... AnonMoos (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Regarding the "Mathematical logic" section: Most authors (including Russell) use the inverted (rotated) iota for this binding operator.
I think this is a better notation, analogous to the rotated A and flipped E for "for all"
and "exists".  The LaTeX code is "\mathrm{\rotatebox[origin=C]{180}{$\iota$}}" 
(requires the \graphicx package) and Unicode is ℩ (℩).  I'm not
sure about the math conventions for Wikipedia, so I'll defer to others to add
a note about this convention if they wish.
146.115.68.200 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Definite description operator symbol

message: On behalf of the general audience, I have replaced the misleading and confusing expression "just in case", with its correct, and easily understood equivalent, "if, and only if" (also, in more technical writing, "if and only if"). The following explains the error:
* Language Log: "Just in Case"
* Southern California Philosophy for philosophy graduate students: "Just in Case".Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Just in case" 

message: Why are we asked to "see also" John Searle when he isn't mentioned in the body of the article? 86.132.222.146 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Searle 

message: The Mathematical Logic section states the following:
However, the given formula doesn't really say this at all. For example, if both \phi(z) and \psi(z) are false for every z, the formula will be true for any witness x.
Gilith (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect formula in Mathematical Logic section