The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
... that logic translations can be used to analyze whether arguments expressed in ordinary language are correct? Source: Baumgartner, Michael; Lampert, Timm (September 2008). "Adequate formalization". Synthese. 164 (1): 93–4. doi:10.1007/s11229-007-9218-1. The problem of adequately transforming statements of natural language into the formalism of standard propositional or predicate logic is a problem most students of logic encounter without being presented with satisfactory solutions. ... Nevertheless, formalizations are frequently used as a means to reconstruct arguments or to prove theorems ... Proofs involving the transformation of ordinary language to a formalism, such as validity proofs of ordinary language arguments or proofs of metamathematical theorems, are convincing only if they rely on a systematic understanding of the adequacy of the formalizations resorted to.
ALT1: ... that an intermediary step in logic translations is to create hybrid expressions that use ordinary vocabulary in logical formulas? Source: Peregrin, Jaroslav; Svoboda, Vladimír (2016). "Logical Formalization and the Formation of Logic(s)". Logique et Analyse (233): 60–1, 63, 77. ISSN0024-5836. (HF1) "∀x (Is-a-donkey(x) → Has-ears(x)) ... The problem with this suggestion is obvious: we would have to explain what kind of formula (HF1) is and to which language it belongs. If the terms Is-a-donkey and Has-ears are expressions just borrowed from natural language, then (HF1) is not really a formula of any of the usual logical languages. In fact, it is no more a formula of CPL than it is an English sentence. Though it is easily readable for any English speaker acquainted with basic logical symbols, it combines expressions that do not really fit together. It might seem that it would be possible to establish a hybrid language that would combine logical symbols with natural language expressions in the way (HF1) does ... The next step is then relatively easy – it involves a transformation of this paraphrase into an expression of the "hybrid" kind of language mentioned above ... We often proceed by paraphrasing and by "translating" the sentence into a formula of a kind of hybrid language, from which we then can abstract away the (extralogical) remnants of natural language
@Phlsph7: Good article. AGF on offline sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)