Talk:Condensed detachment

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

The Condensed Detachment page is poorly written. (I know, I wrote it.) It needs a few examples, much improved wording, and a little rearrangement. Nahaj 21:00:21, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

I did some rewriting. It still needs a section on the historical significance, and on the significance today. (And thanks to Dolph Ulrich for permission to use his formal discription.) Nahaj 18:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment in the "Formal description" section about using an email with permission from the author. If this is true it is not cited, and if it was it should be listed at the bottom under references, not in the middle of the text. I cleaned up the article, but I think the article would benefit from having someone familiar with the topic review it. -Barkeep 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolph Ulrich gave me permission to use his formal description. "If it is true ..." seems unwarrented, and an assumption of bad faith. I could send you a copy of the email if your doubt is serious. Totally removing credit to him because you didn't like where it was seems extreme. (I have a record of him giving permission to use his section if credit was given, I have no such permission to use his stuff uncredited.) I have complied with your request to make it a reference instead of in line... But you will have to point me at what consititues a proper cite for email if what I had wasn't proper. Nahaj 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. [Per the dialog on my talk page] If I'm not allowed to keep the agreement by which the author gave permission to use the text, it is not ethical to keep the text here. Maybe some else can do something to make up the editorial hole this leaves. Nahaj 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the D rule section. That section was created by Barkeep, unattributed, from text that only had permission to be here with attribution. At no time since the section was created in May has it ever had any attribution whatsoever. (The original section the text was in did have a line at the top giving attribution, but Barkeep removed that.) I think that does, however, make the article pretty near worthless.) Nahaj 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just having a two line attribution at the front of the section body would, in my opinion, be a small price to pay for the difference between a stubby good article, and this. But, Barkeep removed the one I had put in the original section this text appeared in, and I seem to be unable to find an alternative that he doesn't say violates the policies. If someone someone can tell me how an obvious author attribution can be put on to cover an entire section, without running up against those rules, I'd appreciate it, and would be more than willing to put up appropriate text in accordance with that. Nahaj 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep has once again added text without the original author's permission. The reason was "undid unexplained removal". The explanation is clearly written above.

Please DO NOT put in text without the copyright owners permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.254.50 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution confusion

A substitution A that when applied to p produces t , and substitution B that when applied to r produces t , are called the Unifiers of p and q .

I'm confused. Shouldn't that be "Unifiers of p and r"? And shouldn't we be talking about "unifiers of q and r", given what the sentence before it says? Francis Lima (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]