Talk:Conversion (logic)

This is an archive of the discussion of a redirected talk page. Please see: Talk:Converse (logic)

.

SO what do you propose to name the new article?? Conversion-contraposition? This article is about traditional logic and its beginning with Aristotle. If you merge these two, then you should have to include the other processes of traditional logic, and inference in natural language where a predicate is still a function of grammar. What do you call the article then? The origin of inference in the history of philosophical logic. Get real. If this is merge is suggested by a mathematician this historical beginning will disappear in view of their disdain for early logic and thus a complete lack of understanding of the roots of modern logic. Conversion and contraposition in traditional logic are not the same as the concepts in class algebra, etc, where the natural reasoning process has been absorbed into rules. This is an absurd proposal, and I think it will be better served by separate article on "Conversion (mathematics)" and "contraposition (mathematics)". It isn't going to happen here.

In conversion an 'A' type statement can only infer the converse in subsumption, whereas in an 'A' type statement the contrapositves are equivalent. In conversion equivocation occurs in the E and I statements, but not in the 'A' and 'O' as in contraposition. No conversion in an 'O' type whereas the contrapositive cannot be found in the 'I' statement. So how are these terms similar enough to be merged? Is the merge for a purpose of contrast? I think the user suggesting this needs to do their homework, forget about the rules, and go back to the preliminaries to find out what is really going on.Amerindianarts 01:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the merge suggestion must be substantiated with a reason for the merge. This reason has not been given by the user suggesting it, nor have they brought up the topic on the talk page. For this reason and in light of recent edits to both articles this tag is going to be removed. Amerindianarts 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

converse /conversion

I got to this page whilst looking for information about how the term "converse" is used in mathematics. (I wanted to verify that I was using it correctly). I think it would be useful to either mention the mathematical use here, or link to a page entitled something like "Converse (mathematics)".Mathematical Leopard 01:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

converse is the apparent spelling in mathematics when the same process is used, see a logic chapter in a math book. this ought to be mentioned in the article.. because apparently the converse page for the sneaker is more important when looking up "converse", it doesn't even take a person to a fair disambiguation page, rather, it just mentions the disambiguation at the top. Nnnudibranch 08:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

see also

Another article (inverse (logic)) has recently been cited for messiness/problems. Interestingly, under the new definition, converse and inverse are logically equivalent, so anything that applies to inverse applies to converse and vice versa. The page may currently be a redirect, so the page may be hard to get to (another problem). 68.144.80.168 (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

all S are P - empty set

If the set S is empty, the conversion from the first table entry "all S are P -> some P are S" is invalid. Is there always the assumption, that all set variables are not empty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.248.147 (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposition types?

I'm an utter layman who ended up here while trying to understand the use of the word "conversion" in logical terms. I couldn't find a good explanation of proposition types (e.g. A, E, I, O) to further my learning and to link here for others to follow. Any thoughts on a good entry for these? Happy to do the edit once I've got a good entry to reference. Thanks! TrivialJim (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)