Talk:Conditional statement

Errors

This article contains some very dubious statements, backed up by references without pages. It appears the author has fallen into error by failing to understand modal logic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strict conditional. -- 202.124.74.211 (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Added page numbers to citations

I have added page numbers to the citations, directing the reader to the mentioned content. Hopefully this will clear up any issues people may have, and will direct them to sources where they may learn about the content in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanlon1755 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is still wildly wrong. The references come from books where "conditional statement" is used with both modal and non-modal meanings. Given the fact that this article is redundant, I'm PRODing it. -- 202.124.72.121 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Noteworthy and Reliable References

Everything is cited, look at the sources yourself. They are highly respected, notable, published references. There are page numbers cited; look at the pages yourself! The reason I created this article is because I myself became confused on the topic. I have since researched the topic well, and have come to a full understanding of the material. This page is meant to clear up any confusion that other people may have, as I did. Everything is accurate. Learn the subject yourself. Much of the material in this article is NOT included on the article for strict implication. People learn what conditional statements are in high school, before they ever come across the terminology "strict conditional." What is it that you think is "wildy wrong" about the material? Say precisely what it is, please. Maybe I can clear up your concerns here. Hanlon1755 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

On a mission

The sources cited do not WP:VERIFY the author's WP:POV and admitted WP:SYNTHESIS. See WP:Articles for deletion/Strict conditional, Talk:Strict conditional and Talk:Material conditional for comments from multiple editors on the factual inaccuracies and tendentious editing by the author of this article, an WP:SPA who, contrary to the WP:CONSENSUS of each forum they've shopped, continues to compete with Strict conditional, an article that's been collaboratively edited for well over 7 years. The user has been encouraged to make contributions to that article, but whereas the wholesale replacement of the article's text with their own is not an option, they've resurrected their version here, yet again.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not admit to any synthesis. You want me to contribute to the article "Strict conditional," but when I do, per your own words, it would be synthesis. I cannot, per your own view, make contributions to the article "Strict conditional." You are contradicting yourself. That is why I have contributed to this article instead. The synthesis you allege in the article "Strict conditional" is not synthesis when put into this article because the cited sources explicitly refer to the "conditional statement." Hanlon1755 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems

It's not clear if this article is talking about natural-language sentences or propositions. Also, the main reference is a pair of geometry textbooks: not really the best reference for logic. And further wikification is needed. -- 202.124.73.201 (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-specialist User Feedback

Hi, I am not a logic specialist. I am interested in conditional statements in relation to causality and cognitive mechanisms such as behavioural conditioning. I found the "conditional statement" page very helpful. Whereas the "material conditional" page was too rich in specialist jargon for me. 217.155.205.34 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And given your interest in "cognitive mechanisms", your comments on the cognitive processes that took place during the recent Afd for this page will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved; parenthetical qualifier (and singular instead of plural) are correct form on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Conditional statement (logic) → Conditional statements in logic –

During the fabulous Afd discussion for this page Arthur Rubin made a comment that was both logical and informed. The new page name is based on that suggestion. To be upfront, the problems I see here are many fold, and the page rename is the first step in fixing the problems, so it will not be the total embarrassment that it is now. This is not an unduly complicated topic. However, it is an utter embarrassment for Wikipedia that may need to get listed on David Letterman's "top 10 Wikipedia embarrassment", if he does such a segment.

My suggestion would be that if/when a rename takes place, Machine Elf 1735 and Hanlon1755 voluntarily step back and let Arthur Rubin and/or CBM rewrite the new page from scratch - should take no more than a few hours. Believe me Machine Elf 1735 and Hanlon1755, it will help both of your blood pressures to step back here. Neither of you will have to have a win/loss emotion and there will be three winners, the two of you and the hapless Wiki-reader who may stumble on this hapless page. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

History2007, in lieu of explaining your rhetorical faux pas at the AfD, you obnoxiously shut down any response by “washing your hands” of it and removing it from your watch list. Funny how you voted “strong keep”, but now you're calling for a total rewrite* under a different title… “fabulous”?

WP:LETGO: Absent any justification, you're claiming it's some kind of “embarrassment” to all Wikipedia. In fact, you're claiming your claim is so ridiculously self-evident, it's fit for Letterman's top 10.

WP:BAIT: the pathos is yours, and if that's all you've got, then indeed, ad hominem would be a big step up. I'm not intimidated, and I'm not averse to defending a more moderate view of how bad the article I nominated sucks. While I think it still falls short of either title, I've no preference, and I'd certainly welcome a rewrite* by Arthur Rubin and/or CBM.

(*) In fairness to the contributors, of whom Hanlon is no longer the sole member, it's more appropriate to welcome everyone's contributions, be they modest or extensive.

Much of the article has already been copied to material conditional, so perhaps the question of turning it into a disambiguation page should enter this discussion? Otherwise, isn't it just a matter of following convention? I'll gladly defer to anyone who would speak to that, thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, fabuolous. Here is what you need to do Machine Elf :

• First, read the page on sphygmomanometer. Then ask yourself why a Wikipedia article on such a simple topic has 4 bright colored tags on it. Then read, the sphygmomanometer page again.

If a simple article has 2 "expert needed" tags on it, something is wrong and in this case also an embarrassment. So let someone else fix it. The rename would make it better than a disambig page because it would allow for a top level explanation. It is a simple solution for an even simpler topic. I see no need for a fanfare here. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't hear “I'd certainly welcome a rewrite*”? I tagged the article with expert needed, and I didn't have to add it back myself when it was removed… Your inability to admit you're wrong must make it very embarrassing to agree with me so completely. Why not take your own sarcastic advice, and reread your "Strong Keep" until that sinks in? A sphygmomanometer is a blood pressure meter: are you going to carry on with lame jokes and mock concern for my allegedly high blood pressure? Is that what's going to turn me into some kind of out-of-control hot-head who'll prevent improvements to the article? No one on Wikipedia, least of all me, cares who you WP:DONTLIKE personally, or who brings to mind that you've embarrassed yourself. I'd be mortified if I were you, but if it's any consolation, I doubt Letterman will say anything.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So I guess you are in favor of a rewrite. And I think a rename before that will be good as suggested in the Afd. Good. Not let someone else just do it. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Open to rewrite under conditions; against rename. I don't have any objection to a rewrite, so long as it agrees with the two ideas that not all if-then statements are material conditionals and that not all material conditionals are if-then statements. I think the article title as it now stands, "Conditional statement (logic)," is better for organizational purposes than is "Conditional statements in logic." Many Wikipedia articles use a title with a term in parenthesis to distinguish it from other articles under the same name. For example, "Set" on Wikipedia has articles related to the set in mathematics (Set (mathematics)), the set in computer science (Set (computer science)), and even the set in C++ (Set (C++)). This article should follow this same uniform format. The proposed title is also more of a phrase than it is a title. Furthermore, the proposed title neither implies nor suggests anything more or less of the article. For these reasons I am against renaming the title from "Conditional statements (logic)." Hanlon1755 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is Logical conditional?

I disagree with Arthur_Rubin and History2007 about their desire to redirect all possible titles to one article. What is Logical conditional (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now? It is a redirect to "material conditional". How material conditional is starting?

The material conditional, also known as material implication, is a binary truth function.

Is logical condition a truth function? Yes (in Boolean logic), Yes (in classical propositional calculus), No (in intuitionistic logic), No (in proof theory). Please, propose something acceptable, otherwise I will revert redirecting an article not deleted at AfD, although I think that current version is not focused on the topic. Also, confirm please that this message is seen and Arthur_Rubin or History2007 think about reply, not just dropped "Conditional statement (logic)" from the watch list. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your intuitionistic point is valid, but the chaotic treatment in the page needing a rewrite did not do justice to it anyway. Would you like to write 5 clean paragraphs that clarify this issue and let us be done with the discussion which will have 50 paragraphs? That would be the best way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Incnis Mrsi; this article needs to be reverted. The whole point of having this article is that logical conditionals (Conditional statements (logic)) are not necessarily material, if ever. It should not at all be a redirect to material conditional. It was mentioned in the various discussions at Talk:Material conditional, Talk:Conditional statement (logic), Talk:Strict conditional, WP:Articles for deletion/Strict conditional, and WP:Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic), that this article may be a WP:CFORK of material conditional or strict conditional. I strongly disagree that this article is a content fork of material conditional for the aforementioned reason. At worst, it's a content fork of strict conditional. The fact that Arthur_Rubin made this a redirect to material conditional shows his lack of understanding for the motivation for having this separate article. I quote Arthur_Rubin in WP:Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic), "As noted above, it's a WP:POVFORK of strict conditional..." If anything, he should have made it a redirect to strict conditional! I support reverting the page to an article not deleted at Afd. Hanlon1755 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will self-revert based on the intuitionistic point. But let us delete 90% of this abomination in any case, so something better can come in. As is, it runs against WP:Lede anyway, given that it has a long quote there, over 4 short paragraphs, etc. and much of it needs to be axed. History2007 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the lede. I think it's too long, confusing, and complex. As I've said in the previous section, I'm open to a rewrite. Hanlon1755 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let us have a raffle to see who will rewrite... I think just 5 clean paragraphs will be enough. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by a raffle, but I have simplified the lede. Feel free to edit (although I do think it's fine as it now stands). Hanlon1755 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would support a redirect to material conditional. The intuitionistic point isn't really valid: there are a number of ways of restricting the valid proofs of $p\rightarrow q$, including relevance logic and intuitionistic logic, but they still define versions of the material conditional, and aren't discussed here anyway. -- 202.124.74.80 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear what you mean by "restricting" the "valid proofs" of "$p\rightarrow q$." You are making this discussion unnecessarily complex. Frankly, I don't need to know what you're talking about there. What is fact is that not all conditional statements in logic are material conditionals (as I've referred to both Barwise and Etchemendy, and Hardegree on the matter in previous discussions), so redirecting this page to material conditional is wrong. People who want to learn about "conditional statements in logic" aren't just looking for "material conditionals," and so such a move is unstrategic and unorganized. Hanlon1755 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only don't you understand me, you don't (as far as I can see) understand those sources. And conditional statements in logic (as opposed to in natural language) are generally some form of material conditional, so the redirect is reasonable. -- 202.124.72.23 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding intuitionistic logic, Peirce's law is an example of an implication which is true by truth tables, but not provable using intuitionistic rules. However, the implication here is still a form of material implication. -- 202.124.72.23 (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand my sources fine. Conditional statements in logic are not always material, and I disagree that they are generally material. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been asserting that for a while, Hanlon1755, but you have failed to back up that rather unusual theory. -- 202.124.72.80 (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've backed it up multiple times by now. I know by personal experience, that redirecting the "general concept of conditional statement in logic" to "material conditional" is misleading. Because of Wikipedia, I had believed for years that material conditional was what I was looking for. I was actually looking for strict conditional. Any reasonable person who wants to look up conditional statements in logic will be misled into believing that material conditional is the only type of "conditional" in logic, which is just untrue. If this page is to be redirected to material conditional, "Material conditional" should at least have a disclaimer at the top stating that this is only one type of conditional in logic (even if the most generally used), and that there are in fact other types of conditionals used in logic. The reader may be interested in these other types! Hanlon1755 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your statements and beliefs have to date not constituted "backing up," I'm afraid. I do agree that we could use an article summarising and comparing treatment of implication in intuitionistic logic, relevance logic, and classical logic. However, this article is not it, and I think your strong emotions on the subject preclude you from writing it. I think it's best to redirect to "material conditional" at this time. That seems to be the WP:CONSENSUS -- 202.124.74.219 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• The AfD did not preclude redirection, which most certainly is the consensus, and by quite a wide margin. Incnis Mrsi, Conditional statement would be the place to address WP:CONCEPTDAB.–Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• JHunterJ, the redirect issue has nothing to do with the "requested move", which had no merit to begin with.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  My edit summary referred to the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic)), not the move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the AfD doesn't preclude a redirect: the closing statement, (in short "not deleted"), implies something should be done with the title… It doesn't say anything about redirection, it only mentions turning it into a dab, although I take it that's not the same as a WP:CONCEPTDAB per se… Perhaps Incnis Mrsi would still be opposed, but as indicated at Proj Math, conditional statement would be better for WP:CONCEPTDAB, and there've been several recent contributions to it. Sorry if I'm overlooking anyone who would find it completely unacceptable apart from Hanlon (currently blocked for 3RR). Assuming History still defers to Arthur Rubin (as do I) that's at least 2 to 1 in favor, counting the 5 IPs at 202.124.*.* as only one user; 96.33.171.225 is Hanlon, btw. So, it's not as wide as I thought, but it's nothing to be dismissed, and it's not a bad turn–out considering the only article that links here is material conditional… Safe to say I'm not spilling any WP:BEANS if I point out that anyone can undo a redirect… Could you elaborate on what quality and/or quantity of consensus should suffice?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Conditions for acceptable solution

I explained in a section above why the solution defended by Machine_Elf_1735 and an unregistered dynamic user is unacceptable. But another disambiguation page, as Hanlon1755 proposed, is not acceptable too. There is one already, and it is not overcrowded. Now I establish the following interim state and try to raise a support for it from WikiProject Mathematics.

1. Conditional statement (logic) redirects to a disambiguation page. No one should alter it before discussion.
2. There appeared no objections against (eventual) creation of WP:CONCEPTDAB-like article. Therefore, some usable drafts may be placed to Conditional statement dab page, even without a strict conformance to WP:MOSDAB guideline.
3. No one should change Logical conditional redirect (which is used as an alias to "material conditional" for years) before discussion, and there should be no mass edits to remove such inbound links.
4. Material conditional will be hatnoted to warn about "logical conditional" redirect.

Thank you for attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I support all that -- it was pretty much the consensus position after the article that was here got into trouble. My only suggestion is that drafts of a WP:CONCEPTDAB-like article start on a suitable talk page (probably Talk:Conditional statement), rather than edit-warring on that existing dab page. My main reason is that debatable material is fine on a talk page; people can suggest changes without altering the original proposal, thus avoiding an edit war.

I have no intention of working on a WP:CONCEPTDAB-like article any time soon, given the history of conflict, but I presume such an article might split into model-theoretic aspects (truth tables, Kripke semantics, etc.), proof-theoretic aspects (intutionistic conditionals, BCI and BCK logics, $\vdash$, etc.), and applications (a brief mention of conditional sentences). -- 202.124.75.40 (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Making the case

Hanlon, rather than go through the edit-revert-block loop yet again, can you please explain your case here? I understand that your main thesis is that conditionals in mathematics are strict conditionals. However, as yet you have convinced nobody of this. Please try to convince at least one or two of us. -- 202.124.75.40 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider the conditional statement "If I am on an island, then I am on Nantucket." This conditional statement is false; a counterexample exists. I could be on an island, but on Oahu instead. The set of all possible cases in which I am on an island is not a subset of the set of all possible cases in which I am on Nantucket.

Let p = "I am on an island," and q = "I am on Nantucket." Suppose p and q are true. I am on an island, and I am on Nantucket.

• The material conditional p → q is true. The hypothesis p is true and the conclusion q is true. The statement is of the form T → T, which is T. This corresponds to the first row on the truth table for material conditionals.
• The strict conditional p → q is false. A counterexample exists; I could be on an island, but not on Nantucket. Therefore it is not true that every time I am on an island, that I am on Nantucket.

The material conditional p → q is true, but the strict conditional p → q is false. The same syntactic statement p → q has a different truth value depending on whether it is expressing a material conditional, or a strict conditional. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between a material conditional and a strict conditional.

But remember our stipulation at the beginning? We concluded the conditional statement "If I am on an island, then I am on Nantucket" is false. This agrees with our finding about the strict conditional p → q. The conditional statement can't be the material conditional because the material conditional p → q turned out to be true. That contradicts what we said about the conditional statement p → q at the beginning.

Generally when we say "If p, then q" we mean that every time p is true, that q is true. We mean that it is impossible that p is true and q is false. We do not mean "not-p or q." We mean that "not-p or q" is always true. We mean that "not-p or q" is necessary. Hanlon1755 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So what? For a point of view of first-order logic it means that ∀x: q(x) → p(x), but p(x) → q(x) is somewhere false. Certainly, ∀x: p(x) → q(x) is stronger than just p(x) → q(x) for some given x, and the quantified formula may be false. What do you miss is just that if one says something like "if p, then q", the formal translation usually is like ∀x: p(x) → q(x). I can say "if… then…", but I really assume a quantifier. It is one of the reasons for which I proposed to write a CONCEPTDAB article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you have said invalidates my argument, though. Using a universal quantifer can in fact provide the same meaning as a necessary operator, as you say (Hardegree, Introduction to Modal Logic, p. III-2); for to be necessary is to be true for all possible worlds (∀x, where the domain of x is all possible worlds). I should still be able to set p = "I am on an island," and q = "I am on Nantucket," such that p → q means "If I am on an island, then I am on Nantucket." I shouldn't have to use quantifers or variables for the system to work. According to material conditional as it now is written, "If p, then q" is formally translated as p → q, where "→" stands for the material conditional. But that's not consistent with what you just said. You just said "...if one says something like "if p, then q", the formal translation usually is like ∀x: p(x) → q(x)." Obviously there's a difference. According to the article, no universal quantifer and no variable is needed (ever), but according to you, usually it is needed. "Assuming" a quantifer, as you say, is not consistent with the convention stated in material conditional. Hanlon1755 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two problems with this argument: (1) it is WP:OR, which is forbidden; and (2) it is beside the point. The sentence "If I am on an island then I am on Nantucket" is true or false depending on where I'm standing when I say it. It is obviously not necessarily true. Does a natural-language conditional imply necessity? Well, the strict conditional is defined on the assumption that it does. Other philosophers disagree. However, this whole issue you raise about interpreting natural-language conditionals is already handled at the strict conditional and indicative conditional articles. There is nothing there that requires a new "conditional statement (logic)" article. Furthermore, nothing in your argument relates at all to conditionals in mathematics. -- 202.124.72.176 (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You say "The sentence "If I am on an island then I am on Nantucket" is true or false depending on where I'm standing when I say it." I disagree. Where does the notion of counterexample come into play there? A conditional statement is supposed to be disproven with a counterexample (Larson et al. 2007, p. 80), which is a specific possible case in which the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false. This suggests a true conditional statement is true in all possible cases, and thus that a true conditional statement is a necessary truth. "If I am on an island, then I am on Nantucket," is false because there is a possible case in which I am in an island, but on Oahu and therefore not on Nantucket. One of the ways to express the conditional statement uses the word "whenever." The example conditional expressed in this form is "I am on Nantucket whenever I am on an island." Expressing the conditional using "whenever" may make it easier to see that the conditional applies to all possible cases and is therefore a necessary statement. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. When I say "If I am on an island then I am on Nantucket" I am using the material conditional. When you say it you are using the strict conditional. That's fine. Many people can be found on both sides of the debate. However, this whole debate is already handled at the strict conditional and indicative conditional articles. There is nothing there that requires a new "conditional statement (logic)" article. Furthermore, nothing in your argument relates at all to conditionals in mathematics. And you cannot be serious in citing Larson, which is a high-school geometry book that obviously uses "counterexample" as a way of explaining the material conditional. High-school geometry books have no credibility in a discussion of logic. I'm afraid you've had your chance to make your case and failed. -- 202.124.72.69 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Failed" in your eyes, of course. I don't think it's even possible for you to say "If I am on an island then I am on Nantucket" as a material conditional. I don't believe material conditionals can be worded with "If..., then..." as a defining property at all. I believe "If..., then..." is a form reserved for only the strict conditional. For the once given argument that "We can word the material conditional p → q as "If p, then q,": watch: 'If p, then q.' There you have it." is invalid. I might as well start wording any combination of two propositions as "If p, then q"! I might as well say I can word the conjunction of p and q as "If p, then q!" I might as well put that in the article for logical conjunction right now! Obviously that argument has problems; "If..., then..." in both English and logic has a definite single meaning that needs to be respected and preserved. I believe that meaning corresponds exactly to the strict conditional. As I've said in the beginning, I have been motivated by having been misled myself by Wikipedia that the "general concept of conditional statements in logic" was the "material conditional," as that was how the redirects were set up many years ago. I have since become wiser and have realized that was terribly wrong. I am just trying to help out future Wikipedia readers so they don't fall victim to the same trap. I think having this article redirected to the disambiguation page for conditionals is good in that it gives the reader the chance to realize there is not just one type of conditional statement in logic. It gives them a chance to review their options and choose the subject they are looking for without misleading (or pretty much, lying to) them. My argument is all about conditionals in philosophy, logic, and mathematics. My primary motivations on the subject stem from mathematics, philosophy, and logic sources. To say my argument doesn't relate to conditionals in math is just unfounded. High-school geometry books have applicability and credibility outside their courses. That's what they're designed to do. This includes the logical concepts contained within them. I don't think the authors of such books are trying to trick or fool high-school students into believing untrue things they later will go on to find completely irrelevant in their study of mathematics, logic, or philosophy. Perhaps you could explain exactly what premises of my argument you disagree with? I feel that so far I have addressed all of your concerns. If I haven't, could you please tell me what needs further addressing? Hanlon1755 (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's an objective fact: you have failed to convince me (or anybody else, so far). You don't seem to have understood my response, but I'm at a loss as to how to explain things more clearly. And the idea that high-school geometry books somehow outweigh graduate-level logic texts seems rather bizarre to me. In any case WP:CONSENSUS is against you. -- 202.124.72.75 (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't explain your side further. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to, especially since you're trying to convince somebody. We're dealing with conflicting publications and I'm not ready to judge one as correct just because of a few stereotyped notions. I'm dealing with the facts straight up where reputation does not come into play. I am not biased toward any of the publications, as you are, and out of my objective analysis, whether it be WP:OR or not, this is what I have to report. Hanlon1755 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the anon; you haven't explained your side at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The "anon"? For clarification, who is it that hasn't explained his/her side at all? Hanlon1755 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to refute something that admits no refutation, but I want to make it clear that what follows isn't intended to admonish you, and certainly not 202 or AR. I think it's your best effort to date… As far as logicalishness goes, rock on. It definitely has a subversive appeal, and it's cleaver enough to pass as cocktail-party-true. But when the listener knows that you're contradicting yourself, and knows you know that they do… lying does seem rude. Still, one can hardly expect a steely eyed, smooth talking wikipedian not to avail themselves of abject nonsense. So the occasional faux pas, due to lack of pretense, was such an astonishing characteristic, and yet you've caught on so fast: that's a right wikipedian polish on that there guile. There was never any chance you'd make a case that every modern textbook on logic is wrong… So instead, short of explicitly disclaiming the expectation that it be taken at face value, it wouldn't just be bizarre, it would be uncharitable to preclude the simple explanation: that it's intentionally and selectively wrong. Thus, despite my former doubts, (reinforced from time to time by a spectacle of gimpiness), herewith I am unencumbered of Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I imagine a blushing confession rather than malice… however, it's undeniable that your remarks about sourcing, if not the curious and interesting ways in which you're argument is wrong, are in fact no accident (pointing out more of the latter was a dead giveaway).

Bravo, how droll. And how favorably you've compared against some the more genuinely daffy output in the immediate vicinity. Speaking of which, I'll admit the tendentious ultimatum did “explain” that a redirect to material conditional would be made unacceptable, in effect. On the other hand, if we were to “throw away” both mentions of truth function, I'm not sure whether that helps or hinders the conspiracy to “redirect all titles” there. Then again, I can't even explain how that seemingly necessary criterion became disposable: it's all a wiki-paradox to me. So, edicts aside, I don't have a problem with redirecting to conditional statement. If that's acceptable to you, (perhaps to Incnis Mrsi as well), that sounds like a good solution. Anyone opposed?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. What I meant to say is that Hanlon hadn't explained why a redirect to material implication was wrong, as it is incorrect to say that a material implication cannot (or even should not) be written as "if ... then ..."; however, a redirect to the disambiguation page conditional statement seems adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A redirect to material implication is wrong because contrary to what you've just said, a material implication cannot, at least always, be written as "If..., then..." When I say "If p," I'm referring to the case in which whatever else may or may not be the case, p is true. This means in any case that p is true. This means I am talking about all possible cases in which p is true. Therefore, the truth value of a conditional statement does not change from case to case. It remains the same in all cases. It's either true in all possible cases or false in all possible cases. It's thus a necessary truth or falsehood; it's a necessary statement. It's a strict conditional. And as I've shown in my example with Nantucket, a strict conditional is not the same as a material conditional. Redirecting this page to material conditional is equivalent to redirecting strict conditional to material conditional. It's a move I strongly oppose. Hanlon1755 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Think about it: If I'm yelling "Look at that!", then I'm yelling. No matter where I'm yelling "Look at that!", no matter what I'm referring to, no matter who I'm yelling to, etc., so long as I'm yelling "Look at that!," it's true I'm yelling. What we mean is that in all possible cases that I'm yelling "Look at that!," that I'm also yelling. Therefore it is necessary that if I'm yelling "Look at that!", then I'm yelling. The conditional statement is a necessary statement. It's a strict conditional. If you don't agree, give me a counterexample. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no redirect to "material implication", there was a redirect to material conditional (which, as I explained above, at the time of edit war started with a hard classical logic PoV; now it is changed). Also note that material implication is now a separate article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in the past, has taught me that the "material conditional" and the "material implication" are the same thing. Because of this, whenever I use either of those terms, I mean it to be synonymous with the other. In fact, as of right now it's still stated in material conditional that those terms are synonymous. It's in the first sentence of the article! To tell me this understanding is somehow wrong, as Incnis Mrsi (talk) just has, only tells me there's even more wrong with that article than I had thought! There does seem to be something wrong with that article, whether it's what I claim, what Incnis Mrsi claims, or both! I support keeping this article (Conditional statement (logic)) as a redirect to conditional statement. I also support that logical conditional be redirected to conditional statement on the grounds that "Conditional statement (logic)" and "Logical conditional" mean the same thing. Hanlon1755 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Material conditional" and "Material implication" should never have been the same thing. I agree that logical conditional should redirect to the same place as conditional statement (logic). And I strongly confirm that any conditional (material, strict, or other logical) can be written "if ... then ...". English is ambiguous, and "if ... then ..." is flexible enough to cover all conditionals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Incnis Mrsi, yes I meant material conditional. I must have noticed some of the buzz, but I hadn't noticed the redirect was converted to a new article yesterday. I'm not sure why you've merely asserted, more-or-less again, that you “explained above, at the time of edit war started”… whenever, it would be less WP:BATTLEFIELD to retire that epithet, as it seems we're reaching a compromise… “with a hard classical logic PoV; now it is changed”… If your Conditions for acceptable solution have changed due to that article's edits these past four days, then no surprise such a subtle "PoV" nuance eluded editors; but more realistically, WP:DONTLIKE would be appropriate jargon for such a lackadaisical “throw away” inquiry. Therefore, I must be oblivious to the gravitas of one or more hatnotes, or less. Perhaps that's for the best.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you were responding to Arthur Rubin. Silly me.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If any of you don't agree, give me a counterexample. That would be a specific case showing my claim is false. There's no better way to disprove such a claim! Hanlon1755 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't given an example yet; why should we need to give a counterexamples — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given at least two examples in this section alone. One involves Nantucket and one involves the sentence "Look at that!" In any case, if you want to give a convincing argument of the falsity of a statement, it's wise to give a counterexample. I kindly ask that you or your side give a counterexample. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, ‘yelling is yelling’ does seem inconsistent with a non-razor. That leaves only one viable assumption, due to policy constraints. It should come as no surprise that advice was contraindicated by the proverbial wisdom (regarding arguments with fools).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by Hanlon's statements, in general. If he's asserting either that a material implication cannot be referenced as "if ... then ...", or that "if ... then ..." in mathematics means the strict implication, then he needs to provide evidence. If he's asserting that "if ... then ..." usually refers to the the strict implication, then I won't argue, but I would argue that it has nothing to do with the appropriate context of this article (or redirect). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'm asserting both of those, Arthur Rubin. I do believe I've provided a lot of evidence, both in general and specific examples, here in this section alone. But now that you mention evidence, how about you give me some? Could you or your side please give me a counterexample to my position? Hanlon1755 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Hanlon wouldn't mind correcting me if I explain what I can… Want he wants to do, is remove (almost) all mention of "if… then" for non-strict conditionals, (perhaps translating them with "and", if required). He's not talking about math, what he's saying is that conditionals in English always really mean "necessarily Un-conditional…" (some kind of joke… but here's what's funny: there are quite a few topics where that's no joke: math, Platonic Forms, eternity, supernaturalism, theology, possibilism, determinism, future contingents, necessary a posteriori/contingent a priori)… He knows he can't provide sources as evidence for any of this, (what modern text omits "if… then"?) He's not interested in edge cases where "if… then" is just a poor fit, or the so-called "paradoxes", or even plausible alternatives: after all, they're about conditionals, not an Un-conditional.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence: about what I want to do. But I disagree with you where you say I'm not talking about math. Conditional statements are used often in mathematics. I don't understand what you mean by saying conditionals in English are "necessarily un-conditional." They are fully "conditional." It seems that you aren't able to give me a counterexample though, and without a counterexample, I would be correct. Hanlon1755 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

“without a counterexample, I would be correct” <wink> truer words were never spoken.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I already gave a counterexample. I gave two of them: one involving Nantucket and one involving the sentence "Look at that!" It's now time to hear your counterexample. Hanlon1755 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See any WP:RS.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS is beside the point. This is not a Wikipedia article. Please give me a counterexample. Hanlon1755 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See any source, Hanlon.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have offered two sources I used to come to my conclusion in this section alone, Larson et al. 2007, and Hardegree. But even that is beside the point. Not everything that is right has been published and not everything that has been published is right. I shouldn't even have to tell you that WP:OR is also beside the point. Once again, this is not a Wikipedia article. With all this said, please give me a counterexample. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also WP:NOT#CHAT. Neither source supports your conclusions, we've been through that more than once. You have no sources. Bottom line, you're an WP:SPA on mission to publish your WP:OR. I'll leave you the last word, “counterexample” no doubt. Maybe no one noticed the first dozen.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that my position is WP:OR. I also agree that I have no sources that, in the strictest sense, explicitly state my position. Keep in mind though, this page is itself not a Wikipedia article. I disagree that neither source supports my conclusions. Even if they don't explicitly say it, they do support my conclusions. Perhaps at this point I'll move into discussing the topic with individual users on their talk pages. I am more than open to discuss the topic on my own talk page. In fact, I encourage it. I do find it a shame that nobody was able to give me a counterexample to the other side of the argument. This suggests that I'm correct in my position. It's frustrating and demoralizing to know that there is a vast array of commonly accepted publications out there that are wrong. Please understand my frustration and demoralization. Hanlon1755 (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)