Talk:Logical consequence

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

High

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Philosophy of language Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Text and/or other creative content from Entailment was copied or moved into logical consequence. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archived discussion from Entailment

Archived discussion from Logical implication

Archive 1

This sentence should be entirely singular or entirely plural

The third sentence in the opening paragraph seems to be using the singular "its" to refer back to the plural "arguments" or "ones." A decision needs to be made by whoever wrote the paragraph or by a knowledgeable editor as to which the sentence should be: either entirely singular or entirely plural. Here are examples: "A valid logical argument is one in which its conclusions follow from its premises, and its conclusions are consequences of its premises"; or "A valid logical argument is one in which its conclusion follows from its premises, and its conclusion is a consequence of its premises"; or "Valid logical arguments are ones in which their conclusions follow from their premises, and their conclusions are consequences of their premises"; or perhaps merely "Valid logical arguments are ones in which conclusions follow from [their] premises, and conclusions are consequences of [their] premises." (I personally would prefer the second example which has a single conclusion following from multiple premises, such as in the famous: "All men are mortal; Einstein is a man; therefore, Einstein is mortal." But the writer should make the choice, not me.) Wikifan2744 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus"

The usage and primary topic of Thus is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged Entailment (pragmatics) to here

The page had no sources and was incomplete and a stub. "Entailment" already redirects here. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced this was a good idea. Of course, the two topics have a common fundamental idea behind them, but the two articles were in were in two different fields of knowledge (natural language semantics/pragmatics vs. formal logic) and I'm not sure I see how the two approaches can be reconciled within a single article. As for the other article being an unreferenced stub, an obvious remedy is to expand it with sources. – Uanfala (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Reverted. More investigation is required. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logical consequence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403201417/http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+consequence to http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+consequence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"formal" consequence

Defining all consequence relations as "formal" is a bit misleading. Especially when including a historical perspective like the quoted Asmus and Restall chapter. It is Tarskian consequence that is "formal". Asmus and Restall write on p. 15: "That logical consequence is schematic, and in this sense formal, is a traditional tenet of logical theory. There is far more controversy over other ways in which consequence may be formal.". It might be at least helpful to explicitly contrast formal consequence and material consequence, and then explain why "logical consequence" is typically associated with the former.