Talk:Antecedent (logic)

Unless

The definition in this article should probably be clarified since, I'm assuming, in the statement "A unless B", A is not called the antecedent even though it comes first, because logically, the statement is equivalent to "if not B then A". Thus A is actually the consequent. Right? - dcljr (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

True, referring to "first" and "second" is not a good definition (one also occasionally says "B if A"). Regarding unless, doesn't the statement mean "(not A) if and only if B"? AmirOnWiki (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbols

I can't figure out why the author of this paragraph (copied and pasted below) changed alphabets. If there is some meaning conveyed by switching from the Latin P and Q to the Greek φ and ψ, then that should be clarified. If not, I think it would be better to select one set of symbols and stick with it.

This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q. In an implication, if φ implies ψ then φ is called the antecedent and ψ is called the consequent.[1]

(HypatiaGrace (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC))

See also Talk "Ambiguous example" regarding the implication example. The change in alphabet makes sense with that example clarified.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Antecedent (logic)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Rated as stub == Short article without citations or references. Hotfeba 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-place text deleted

I have deleted "It is also known for a person's principles to a possible or hypothetical issue." from the first line. 86.132.216.74 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguous example

In the intro, this doesn't seem to make much sense:

In an implication, if $\phi$ implies $\psi$ then $\phi$ is called the antecedent and $\psi$ is called the consequent.

Is it supposed to mean:

In the implication "$\phi$ implies $\psi$", $\phi$ is called the antecedent ...

BMJ-pdx (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to make any sense of the original, so I have applied the change. If anyone can clarify the original, please reword it.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)