Talk:Logical biconditional
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] unambiguous
In the section on colloquial usage it says that the only unambiguous way of putting the biconditional in English is to say, "b if a and a if b". Should a if and only if b not be included here?Davkal 22:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to put in a brief note to include the formulation "just in case" which is commonly used in philosophy as th biconditional even though the usual English meaning of "just in case" is "as a precaution against...", as in, e.g., "I took my umbrella just in case it started raining". Davkal 22:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed project
I have been working on all of the logical operators recently. I would like to see a consistent format for them. There is a wikiproject proposal for this at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Logical_Operators. Also see Talk:Logical connective.
I would like to see the logical, grammatical, mathematical, and computer science applications of all of the operators on the single page for each of those concepts.
Gregbard 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] merge from Logical equality
Not quite the same, as A = B = C may mean they all have the same truth value, while A iff B iff C may mean A iff (B iff C). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
...which also means they have the same truth value.The convention that I have seen, and believe is convenient is the the equal with two bars (=) means "same numerical value as," the one with three bars
means "has the same truth value as," and one with four bars (which I don't think we can make yet) means "is the same set as."
- I would like to see this article deal with this one: . I think that would include as least some of the material from logical equality, but not so much (if any) from logical equivalence. Gregbard 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I should point out that the merger with if and only if has already been proposed, discussed, opposed and rejected -- see Talk:If_and_only_if#Merge. Also, I'm not an expert on logic, but it seems as if if and only if, logical biconditional and logical equality are related but distinct ideas, being from mathematical logic, propositional calculus, and electronic engineering (I think), respectively. Even if they're the same thing, that doesn't necessarily make a merger the right option; they seem to be written with different target audiences in mind, and it's often worth including different treatments of the same idea, for people from different backgrounds, such as with quantum mechanics and introduction to quantum mechanics. James pic (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
