User talk:Philogo

Welcome!

Hello, Philogo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! NewbyG (talk)

I notice you signed up as an early proponent for the creation of WikiProject Logic. Since then, the proposed project has been moved to it's own space and you have been listed as a Charter Member. Thank you for paving the way for the creation of this project. This is an invitation for your continued and perhaps renewed participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave any message that is not to do with any matter below --Philogo 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16th December 2010:

Please check my sources before writing them off as uninformative. To say that philosophy relies on rational argument is ignoring a wide part of the tradition which sees human freedom as more radical than rationality - whether or not you agree is irrelevant for the purposes of creating a balanced and informative article. All views must be represented - did you bother to read the citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.85.123 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 90.202.85.123: Please see the talk page of the Philosophy whose lede you have been editing, and discuss matters there Philogo (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC) - 90.202.85.123: found the talk page and have included my thoughts, cheers![reply]

Hi-- on the "Atomic sentence" page there was an error on the last example of the "Interpretations" section-- I think. I've corrected it, but since I've only been studying logic (propositional calculus) for about a week I figured it was best to direct your attention to it as well, in case I've totally messed up. Thanks for your contributions, by the way, they've really helped me review some of the material I'm covering. -DWRZ (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Hi - I see you picked up on missing closing parenthesis and spelling typos. Thank you. The examples are of first order predicate calculus, and since you have just started proposional calculus your are obviously reading ahead! Let me know if you have any suggestions for further articles. My idea is that logic articles should be comprehensible to people who do not already know the answer.[reply]

Thanks and good to hear. I've actually found the articles quite helpful and in many cases much clearer than the textbook. The fact that there are few other well organized online resources makes this a much more critical resource IMHO. I'm winding up my exam season now, but after that I do plan on looking around the articles a bit and helping out in minor fixes and feedback (student perspective).

One thing which does have me stumped at the moment is that I can't find the equivalent English (word or maybe the article doesn't exist) for what the Italians call "alberi semantici" (I'm currently enrolled in my semester abroad in Italy). The literal English would be "semantic trees", I think... it is used as a way (indirect method) to check if a proposition/wff (it works with both propositional and predicate calculus) is a tautology or not by starting with the assumption that the proposition/wff is false. Structured like a tree with the original proposition/wff as the "radice" (root) and the atoms as "foglie" (leafs). Sorry if the description makes no sense-- I've only got a basic grasp of the concept at the moment. Anyway, does this ring a bell as to what it might be in English? And if so, is there an article for it (if not, I'd be willing to start some work on it once break begins).

Again, thanks. ----DWRZ (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are called "truth trees". There seems to be no Wiki articel on it but I find soemthing at this address, but not read it:-

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/treeprop.htm

A sentence can be shown to be valid by putting its negation in the root, and then you find all branches are closed, i.e. the negation can never be true. Consequently the senttence itself must be logically true (a tautology if in sentencial calculus).
You can also test an argument for validity like this. In the root put the premises and the negation of the concusion. If the argument is valid then all branches are closed (i.e there is no interpreation with true premises and a false conclusion.) Interestingly there are some sentences which if you put them in the root, you can never draw the whole tree in finite time (there are always some more branches) so you can never tell - in finite time - if the tree is/would be closed or not. See if you can find one and say what you can conclude about such sentences. --Philogo (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is exactly what I learned, but I was not sure what the name was in English. I'm not really sure about the question-- it sounds interesting and I remember talking about computability issues in my AI class. I don't think I'm quite at a level to answer this yet, though. :\ In any case, to answer your other question-- I finished my logic class last semester, this semester I've still been doing philosophy (which is my major) but nothing logic related (and it's been a very tough semester otherwise). Next September I'll be back in the States and it's very likely I'll be back in Logic then. In the meantime I'm in my exam period-- afterwards I'll be away from the net for quite some time, so I may not be able to contribute much again until July. If there's anything I can help with now or in the future though, let me know, it would be great to help out. Again, thanks for all your work and help. --DWRZ (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you again --DWRZ. I will leave a sentence here for infinite tree sometime. You contributions and commente always welcome. I am trying drum up interest in the negelected philosophy of logic article just now. Keep me posted on your adventures in Philoland.--Philogo 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find a good way to transclude the lists, so there are two of them. One is at Template:logic, and the other is Portal:Logic/Logic topics. However, if you click on the tiny little "e" in the upper left corner of the template, that will let you edit it. For more parameters of the template, check out Template:Navbox generic. Hope hope this helps. Gregbard 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the one and transcluded the other on the portal.Gregbard 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the tiny little "show" on the philosophy template, it unfolds to show a link to the logic project. The philosophy banner has options for all various branches of philosophy (more than one if needed). After the big round of compliants entirely form math people, I decided to get things ready for a segregated project. We will end up with the math people responsible for "their" categories, with a work list of their own (under Project Math/foundations), and the "philosophy" people will have "our" categories. Do you see how there is two of everything at WPLogic, well its more of the same. I could use a little input on the proposal I made at WPPhil.

Gregbard 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, have I turned over a stone? By "segregated project" do you mean there will be two Wikiprojects Logic, one fr amths people and one for philsophy? or perhaps soem articles therin tobe maintained by maths people and one by philospohy people? I am somewhat confused.--Philogo 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it will work out. The math people can hold whatever they want hostage. I think there will be a list of categories for the math people, and a list for the philosophy people. There will be two links at WP:Logic one to the philosophy logic assessment worklist, and one to the math foundations worklist. Together the two lists will be the whole of it. As new articles come in we will put them in one or the other. They get the math tag, we get the phil tag with no logic tag per se. There will probably be orphan articles neither want to claim. There will be some we both insist on including. (a good claim for keeping the logic tag I guess) The goal will be to make the overlap small I guess. They don't want anything to do with that fuzzy philosophy stuff. This way we are limited to just two banners and not potentially three.

My whole point in my latest effort is getting ready for automatic bot tagging. I would like as few complaints as possible, so segregated is probably the way to go. They can be responsible for their stuff. They have a "foundations" section for it. The best we on the philosophy side is to hold them to it. I.e, ask them to tag any articles in those categories with math foundations and be responsible for them.

I'm open other ideas. Please take a look at some of the task force categories I have laid out at WP:Phil. These are just supposed to be the ones whose every article gets tagged philosophy, and as a part of the particular task force. Then check out the break down.

Be well,Gregbard 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned over a stone! Are you saying that it is proposed that: a) There is a WP Logic b) WP Logic will have two task lists one (A) will be on the philosophy logic assessment worklist and the other (B) on the the math foundations worklist. c) Articles on the (A) list will get the phil tag those on the (B) list will get the math tag. There will be no logic tag so no article can get it. d) By "logic tag" do you mean a banner that says "this article is within the scope of WP logic" (i.e like {{logic3}}? --Philogo 12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to cut down on tags since everyone hates them. I think they are wonderful tools for collecting data. I don't know if there will end up being just a plain old "logic tag" unless it is for A) articles which both projects reject or neglect as their own, B) articles both claim as their own but will only have the one tag (I don't think the math people will go for this) or a strange project consisting of both A) and B).

The creation of the multiple "task forces" at WP:Phil is not so much an attempt at user space for a group of dedicated people to a task, as it is a tool for categorizing. The task force language kind of came with the format. It doesn't matter if anyone ever signs up really. It's about the tools.

Altogether it is designed to catch everything in philosophy in at least one category.Gregbard 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a “tag” is like {{logic2}} or {{logic3}} what's to hate? We are just editing /writing article for an encyclopaedia are we not - what's wrong with such a tag on a talk page? Puzzling.

Where can I read what these "Maths people" are saying? A lot of people, including myself, are interested in Logic & they may have different academic backgrounds. I can see that various Logic articles might be of interest to Mathematicians and Philosophers and maybe some such articles are more interesting to the former or the latter. However if we are to have a WP Logic then I feel that Logic articles should be tagged as under the WP Logic remit. (I do not see any reason why they should not also be tagged under WP Logic and WP Maths as well, although I cannot see this as having a tremendous advantage. ) However, although I have not read all the arguments you refer to, I feel that if WP Logic is to prosper, so that the standard of Logic articles improves (they are very mixed I feel) then they should not be tagged MATHS or PHILOSOPHY instead of Logic; in other words “as well” OK, “instead”, ${\displaystyle \neg }$OK. Logic I feel should stand on its own and not just as a branch of Philosophy or a branch or Maths. I certainly do not think that some Logic articles should be treated as Philosophy-Logic and others Math-Logic.; I feel that such a distinction is spurious and the demarcation would be impossible. (There is in my view a distinct subject, Philosophy of Logic, as distinct from logic as Philosophy of Science is from Science. THIS should certainly come under WP Philosophy, and the page of Philosophy of logic is woefully neglected, to the shame of WP philosophy.) For logic articles I hold out for a Logic tag like {{logic3}}
--Philogo 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there's also logical argument, which at first glance from a non-philosopher like me seems to be about the same thing.

Actually, you've been editing that one too, so you must know. Surely the names should be changed then at least.

Ah, by the way, please avoid using capital letters improperly. For example, logic should not normally be capitalized as you did here [1]. The same goes for article titles and headings within articles. Cheers. Richard001 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard001. You are quite right the articles are supposedly on the same subject. I edited Logical Argument a bit but decided that it was so poor that I would start over and Argument(Logic)is the result. I am not sure what your interests are but if you were interested in what the term Argument meant in Logic (and presumably you were new to Logic or would not be looking it up) which do you think would be the more helpful? Logic as a subject values clarity and precision very highly (you should read the scoldings Frege gives his fellow mathematicans, and sets the tone for the precision requried in Logic. It is therefore just a little tricky to be precise in this way and yet readable to the novice; precision and readabilty, and no waffle is what I am aiming at. I imagine that in some Darwinian way one or other of these articles will be deleted or be "merged" into the worst of both worlds.

I took the opportunity to use what I consider a much better title (Argument (Logic) for the following reasons. Often a word which has a meaning in common speech has a special meaning in a particular discipline. Take 'Force' for example. We might have articles explaining its use in different subjects like this: Force (Physics) : Mass x Acceleration; Force (Law): Physical means of obtaining compliance. {I have just made the definitions up). The word "Argument" has a particular and precise meaning in Logic. It is not the same the argument of a function, not is it a heated dispute. Nor for that matter is it an attempt to persuade, and it is akin to but not the same as the arguments that a lawyer or philospher might put forward in support or refutation of a particualr point of view. 'Tautology' also has a special meaning in Logic - not the same as in Literature. ( I beleoive the term was first used in Logic and given its defeintition by Wittgenstin. Therefore we would be best off with articles with headings like Force (Physics); Force (Law); Argument (Logic); Argument (to a function or predicate); Tautology (Logic); Tautology (Litt.) Anyway "Logical Argument" is just silly. A fallacy is an argument in Logic but it is not valid. Does 'Logical Argument' denote just valid arguments (an exclude fallacies); or does it mean Argument as used in Logic? If the latter the its like saying 'Physical Force' for 'Force (in Physics) and 'Functional Argument' for Argument (of a function), or 'Musical Note' to mean 'Note (in Music).

Mea culpa re capilisation. I would say Logic the subject like Physics the subject should be capitalised - I can see the logic (not Logic) in that.--Philogo (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to just start a new article on the same thing if you don't like the present one. For one thing, the editors of the present one are likely not to even notice that there is a new article on the same subject. In any case, we never have two articles on the exact same subject, so they'll have to be merged. Richard001 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On refelction the two articels are NOT on the same subject; Argument(Logic) is about arguments in just Deductive Logic; logical argument is of wider scope & not so resticted.--Philogo (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute, could you discuss on Talk:atomic sentence the technical mistake I pointed out with the sentence you added to the lede of that article? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you editeed mid my edit. As I left it just now there is an opening defection, then two sentes which follwo from it concerning sentential and predicate logic. I have suggestd that we discuss future edits on top of use page before making them. Also I invite you to join me re para on atomic sentences in natural language. OK--Philogo (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia articles, we do not speculate about an author's intent. We do not insert quotes without external sources (meaning outside Wikipedia). The wording of the sentence about the Sherlock Holmes story was the result of much negotiation to find neutral wording which only says that they referred to it without indicating whether they were right or wrong. I can throw a dozen definitions at you which say that the term was correct in many cases, but there's no need to do that. All the article needs to say is that it's a cultural reference, which is correct. It is indeed a reference. The article does not say Holmes used deduction.Wryspy (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are correct in guessing that someone messed with the sentence about Newton's reasoning. It originally said that Newton induced the theory of gravity and used that to deduce specific conclusions. Wryspy (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wryspy: Please give your reasons for your edits on the talk page for the article, so that others can see the reasons for your edit. Thanks. --Philogo (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In case you didn't notice, that reason was a bit lengthy to cram into an edit summary. 2. You stated that you reverted because I gave no reason in the edit summary. Yes, I did. It says, "Do not speculate." -- which still holds true. Don't speculate about the author's intent. 3. If you want someone to see your comment to them (above), you need to post it on their own talk page. If I hadn't felt like coming here right now to respond to the remark you made in your edit summary, I would have never discovered this. I have no reason to watch your talk page. Wryspy (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that when I set up the logic project with the two worklists against your protests, it wasn't done lightly. I didn't know what to do about all of the conflicting positions, so I did the best I could. Pretty much ever since then when I see your username I think about the fact that you are still probably unhappy with me about it. I can't really blame you on that issue since I basically took the initiative and pursued what I saw as the best compromise. I think about it from time to time and I still don't know what other way to do it that wouldn't piss someone else off. In any case I think it is working out all right as separate lists so far.

Anyway, thanks for your work on interpretation. I think we are pretty much on the same page there for the most part. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard, nice to hear from you on my talk page, which has few visitors. At the time of the our split-no-split "debate" I was puzzle by your references to wars and maths people &c. I have a little more idea now, and I understand why you supported the split, but I foresaw the consequences. The big split. We will finaish up with precise but to non-mathemacticans incomprehensible defeintions from matn peiple for MAths logoc, and imprecise and fluffy articles under Philosphy MAths. I say Logoc is Logic. Philopsy of Loogc is not a type of Logoc any more than Philosophy of Science as a type of science. Ae have precatiocally zero articles on Philosophy of Logc issues, adn we are not gong to get them until we have a set of comprehensible AND preocise areticles on the (relatively straight forward) basics of Elementry Logic. Now there seems to be some idea (among the maths people anyway) that there is one thing call Mathematical Logic and in a parallel universe another thing called "Philosophical Logic" which has alternative definitions of all the terms like validity and interpretation. They have got this in their head now and it is taking a lot of time to disabuse them. And I think that the source of this confusion is the split that I opposed. You will see that in the article on interpratation (which you kind of invited me into) I said right at the beginnng that I was unaware of their being more than one definition nad I think, many hours late, this is being somewhat half-heartedly acknowledged. The math people (god bless their socks) are really reluctant to let go the idea that there are two meanings, despite all indications to the contrary. To my mind people with Science and Math backgrouns find it more diffcualt to expalain ideas to people from other backgrounds than people with Arts backgounds, e.g historians. They assume that the terms they are familiar with are familiar to all (cannot think why it is obvious that they are not, and they msut sulrly remeber all teh works they put it for they themsleves to learn them). Also I supect that they use a term like "wrong" sometimes to mean incorrect and sometimes inadvisable. Not all scientists and "math people" I hazard to add. I can read Frege an Russell with ease for example, since they write both precisley and clearly and define all their terms. Please look at my very last posting to Interpretation where I make a heart-felt plea that we should write both precisley and comprensibly to the intended audience, the intelligent non-specialist. I suspect that of we all co-operate and not be rude then we might finish with readable article of which we can all be poroud and happy. Then we can jointly tackle another one.

PS I still say, if I might be so bold, that you are wrong to say that in an interpretion you must "name" every object, and I suspect you are misremembering the requirement to assign an object to every individual constant. As you say, be well--Philogo (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I can comment as a mathematical logician, it isn't true that we think there are two definitions of validity, one in mathematical logic and one in philosophical logic. One way of looking at things can be very roughly sketched as: logic done using the tools of mathematics is mathematical logic, while logic done using natural-language tools is philosophical logic. Of course there isn't a sharp divide, since many philosophy papers have a mathematical component, and many mathematical papers have a philosophical component (at least in mathematical logic). Another distinction is in the area of focus: philosophical logic is more likely to be concerned with philosophical issues, mathematical logic more interested in technical issues. The field of "logic" of course includes both sides, which are inseparable.

A confusing issue for me is that in many cases there is already an article on the mathematical definition; so if that is the only definition in all of logic, it would be easier to redirect all the pages to the same place rather than duplicating the material. The only reason I can see to have a page named interpretation (logic) is to talk about interpretations other than first-order structures, because we already have an article on first-order structures (although it could use a some polishing). In short: what material should go into interpretation (logic) that isn't already covered elsewhere? It's natural to suspect that such material exists when editors start to expand an article rather than redirecting it.

This issue appears again in atomic sentence. In the context of first-order logic, there is no interest in atomic sentences; it's just the intersection of two definitions, and there isn't really much to say. In this case, I know that there is more to say in the context of natural-language sentences and the theory of truth. That is what should go in the article on atomic sentences. I think that a possible reason for the slant toward mathematical logic in some articles is that nobody who knows that philosophy side is adding that material to articles, which only leaves the mathematical portion of the material visible.

A parallel situation would be if lots of physical chemists were on Wikipedia but few organic chemists. The basic articles would seem to be biased, but that's only because one major area had not been filled in, not because the physical chemists were actively trying to suppress organic chemistry. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello visitors, one and all. I disagree with "logic done using the tools of mathematics is mathematical logic, while logic done using natural-language tools is philosophical logic.". Logic as studied by and of interest to philosophers is largely the same as mathematical logic (formerly symbolic logic). Philosophical Logic is not Logic as studied by philosophers. Philosphical Logic is philosophy, logic informed enquiring into questions about the nature of language and thought and contents and structure of the world, not Logic. (See Grayling, An introduction to Philosophical Logic, 1982.): The Philosophy of Logic is the study of issues arising FROM Logic. (see work by Quine for an example) Similarly the Philosophy of Science is NOT an alternative form of Science, and Philosophy of Maths is NOT as alternative form of maths. There are respectively the study of (philosophical issues) that arise FROM science and maths respectively. However I suspect that the following may lead to the confusion. When mathematicians study Logic they are perhaps mainly interested in its applications in Mathematics (just as computer scientists are mainly interested in its application in computer science. Philosophers however are interested in the application of Logic in ALL universe of discourse. Indeed they would argue that if e.g. a sentence were not valid in ALL interpretations, e.g. with three philosophers or even three flying horses, with all universes of discourses, then it would not be logically valid. That is perhaps why when philosophers give examples of interpretations with they often come up with such intentionally odd examples, round square copulas and women who have landed on the moon. They are not intended to be "informal" interpretations, simply possible interpretations, on the grounds that that it exceptions that prove (i.e. test) the rule. Another reason why philosophers might suggest "All men are mortal" etc for their examples are this. For the non-specialist, says an archaeological student, or a philosopher mainly interested in Epistemology, Ethics or Philosophy of Science he or she can more easily follow and understand and discuss such such an example with another person than an example involving mathematical objects with which he or she may be unfamiliar. Therefore my hope is that WikiProejct – Logic results in Wiki (logic) articles that are precise and comprehsnsible to the non-specilist and all those who are willing and able to contribute, be they mathematical logicans or not, do so.

I don't follow what you are saying about interpretations. An interpretation in first-order logic is precisely a structure, they are synonymous up to trivial translations like identifying propositional variables with nullary relation symbols. Do you agree with that statement?

Sorry that you did not follow what I am saying about interpretatians; sorry but I do not follow what you are saying in your last enetence. (I would have to read structure first.--Philogo (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a copy of the book, I recommend reading the introduction to Donald Monk's Mathematical logic to get a better exposition of the way some mathematical logicians view the relationship between mathematics and logic. I quoted parts of it here. My explanation above isn't very good, I know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll do that but I'm a bit busy reading Frege just now.

When I was invited to join Wiki-Project (Logic) and I was quite keen because I thought there were some really pretty bad articles (as well as some good ones). The bad ones, so it seemed to me divided in two types. (a) Those that were hopelessly muddled and woolly (b) those that tried to explain basic concepts using terms that would be less familiar to the ordinary reader than the term or concept being explained. Then there came the proposal that Logic articles should be edited not by one team, but two. Some logic articles would be deemed mathematical and some philosophical. I very much opposed that and I foresaw the subsequent developments. I also noted that there practically zero articles on Philosophy of Logic to Wiki-shame. I now fear that there will be none because the term "Philosophy of Logic" and "Philosophical Logic" appear to be now reserved for those articles that mathematical logicians would not touch with a barge pole. I short I am a rather disillusioned Wiki-Project (Logic) founder member, and apparently in good company (scine everybody else seems to have pretty much bizzed off months ago). I am also rather put off by the insults flying about and general posturing which is not conducive quiet rreasoning to article-improvement. I could not BELIEVE the length of the discussion pages on Interpretation (Logic) at which I was invited to look at. So many words! So many insults! So little progress! There seems to be no reaction if I flag an article as in need or improvement and no volunteers to form a team to work on the article. Consequently my articles and edits are sporadic at best. I suppose I feel my time is better spent reading, Frege for example. As I said above my hope is that WikiProejct – Logic results in Wiki (logic) articles that are both precise and comprehensible to the non-specialist and all those who are willing and able to contribute, be they mathematical logicians or not. I would not think this wee a forlone hope, and would be less discouraged if anyone expressed their agreement with that hope.--Philogo (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)--Philogo (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in articles that are both precise and accessible, and I am confident that many of the other "math editors" are as well. So you are far from alone there.

Personally, I think that it's better to improve existing articles, rather than have multiple articles on the same subject. Wikipedia is full of these suplications, where people in different areas create articles separately about the same topic.

For example, the object that assigns semantic meanings to a first-order language is called a structure in mathematical logic, as well as an interpretation, depending on what field the author is in. One article on it is at structure (mathematical logic), although it could use some editing for accessibility and completeness. Unfortunately, I think Gregbard didn't realize that, so he created a second article at interpretation (logic). More unfortunately, he made a few technical mistakes when he created it, which math-centric people often focus on to the exclusion of the broader issue.

My preferred solution, if the article on "interpretation (logic)" is really just meant to talk about first-order structures, is to redirect it to the established article and improve just that one article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the term "signature" is similar in meaning, but how do the terms differ how are they helpful? I understand the idea of one topic one article but I think that structure (mathematical logic) for example is FAR too complicated for our intended readership of (Logic) articles, and I doubt that it could be made comprehensible to them by editing and therefore I can see why Gregbar might have started a new article. We need a set of Logic articles that are clear and precise suitable for people who are not mathematicians. (That achieved those of us who are interested in such things could begin writing some surely need Philosophy of Logic articles.) To achieve it however I think we need the collaboration and assistance of mathematical logicians. I disagreed with Gregbard in agreeing to designate some articles to be maintained by "maths people" and some by "philosophy people" and none by both or Logicians. This prevents collaboration on the articles for people who are not mathematicians. I thought it would lead to the death of Wake-Logic and I think it just about has. We could however change our minds and agree to collaborate again. e suld agree that some articles can and should be maintnaed by all WikiLogic people. By the way, ref interpretations, LTF Gamut in Logic Language and Meaning Vol 1 Introduction to Logic Chap 3 points out that the provision of interpretations of e.g. a unary predicate letter A by associating it with the extension of a set is not the only possible way of providing an interpretation. We might also interpret A as a property and determine whether a given element of D has this property. Indeed this seems to be the most natural interpretation. What we have done here is to take, not properties themselves, but the sets of all things having them, as the interpretation of unary predicate letters. The exploration of these two approaches would be of some interest and might make an interesting Wiki-Logic article. The usual extensional approach has the following drawback. Consider two distinct properties having the same extension, and assign those extensions to two predicate letters, say A and B. Since the extensions are the same the "meanings" given to A and B are the same in the interpretations. (In older temrs "meanings" are associted with denotations rather than connotations) The distinctiveness of the properties is not reflected in the interpretation. Thus under this theory of meaning to say that I am Walter Scott means the same as saying I am the author of Waverly. If we avoided this by using intentional rather than extensional interpretations, what would be the ramifications in Mathematical Logic? --Philogo (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't see that it makes much difference for first-order logic, because there are no variables that range over predicates or relations. So there is no equality relation between relations themselves, and the only way to say two relations are the same is with a formula like ${\displaystyle \forall x(Ax\Leftrightarrow Bx)}$.

But it is a known issue in higher-order logic. In that context, it's necessary to add extra extensionality axioms if they are desired. Otherwise, it is perfectly possible for two higher-type objects to be extensionally equivalent but not equal.

The downside of extensional equality shows up in higher-order arithmetic. Extensional equality of higher-type objects (even type 1) isn't decidable, and thus can't be included as a basic relation in intuitionistic systems or very weak fragments of arithmetic. But if the axioms of extensionality are dropped, and intensional equality is used, then it is possible to include a decidable equality relation for higher-type objects. I think that's the system Goedel used for his work with intuitionistic arithmetic.

By the way, I completely agree that the article structure (mathematical logic) isn't as accessible as it can be - but I think the solution to that is to improve it rather than duplicate the same material elsewhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl: Would you be willing and able to set out the reason why the domain of an intepretation must not be the the empty set?
Do you agree that there is no such requirement with regard to the intepretation of predicates?
Do you agree that it is the denotation of some set s, not the set s itself, that is assigned to some predicate Δ in an assignment?
--Philogo 09:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We have accepted a definition of interpretation that requires that (among other things) it assigns with each n-ary predicate of L or of Φ an n-ary relation among elements of D. Would you agree that the nature of this assignment is such that:
If Ά is some assignment and Δ is the domain it has declared and Φ is some one-place predicate and Θ a sub-set of Δ defined as being those elements of Δ that have some property Ρ and Θ is assigned to the denotation of Φ and ά is some individual constant that is assigned to some element ε of Δ, then the sentence Φ(ά) is true under Ά just in case ε is an element of Θ and ε has the property Ρ?
--Philogo 10:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)<br /

see and compare Property (philosophy), lede, para 4, which says:

In mathematical terminology, a property p defined for all elements of a set X is usually defined as a function p: X → {true, false}, that is true whenever the property holds; or equivalently, as the subset of X for which p holds; i.e. the set {x| p(x) = true}; p is its indicator function. It may be objected (see above) that this defines merely the extension of a property, and says nothing about what causes the property to hold for exactly those values.

--Philogo 11:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An important reason for not allowing the domain of discourse to be empty is so that equivalences like:

${\displaystyle (\phi \lor \exists x\psi )\leftrightarrow \exists x(\phi \lor \psi )}$,

where x is not free in φ, are logically valid. This equivalence is not logically valid when empty structures are permitted (e.g. let φ be ${\displaystyle \forall y(y=y)}$ and ψ be ${\displaystyle x=x}$). So the proof theory of first-order logic becomes much more complicate when empty structures are permitted, but the gain in allowing them is negligible, as both the intended interpretations and the interesting interpretations of the theories people study have nonempty domains.

For the other question, it seems to me that you are defining Θ twice: it cannot both be defined using property Φ and predicate P unless these are identical. So I don't understand what you are asking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carl, I will ponder para 1 when less tired. I was curious myself, and others are, and I thought that it might make an interesting section to our article

re para 2, I got my greek letter twisted. I was using greek letters to make clear they are meat-symbols. I'll tr again, and then I hope you will see what I am asking.

I should have written:-

If Ά is some assignment and Δ is the domain it has declared and Φ is some one-place predicate and Θ a sub-set of Δ defined as being those elements of Δ that have some property Ρ and to Φ is assigned the denotation d of Θ and ά is some individual constant that is assigned to some element ε of Δ, then the sentence Φ(ά) is true under Ά just in case ε is an element of Θ and ε has the property Ρ.

Is that correct?

Just in case I have screwed it up again:

Given:

Ά: Some interpretation

Δ: The domain

Φ: A predicate (symbol)

Θ: A subset of Δ

d: The denotation of Θ

P: The property that defines the set Θ

ά: some individual constant

ε: Some element of Δ

If the interpretaion associates the predicate (symbol) Φ with the denotation d, and the individaul constant ά with the element ε

then the sentence Φ(ά) is true just in case the element ε has the property P.

Eg if the predicate letter F is associated with the denotation d of the set s of white things (defined as having the property (is) white) and b is associated with a particular thing say my pen, then under this interpreation Fb is true just in case my pen is a member of s the set of white things i.e if my pen has the property of whiteness/is white.

--Philogo 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the domain D is some set of pens, F is the set of elements of D that are white, and c is some constant symbol interpreted as a particular pen, then Fc will hold in the structure if and only if the pen represented by c is white. This seems to me a matter of definition, so I think I may not understand what you're asking.

By the way, it's certainly true that the interpretation of a unary relation could be the empty set, even in the convention that the domain cannot be empty. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And even not only of a unary one. --Cokaban (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just chose a unary one to simpify the discussion. I understand (I hope) now why the allowing the empty set as the domain would complicate proof theory. Why does the same problem not arise if do not require predicates to be associated with non-empty sets?--Philogo 11:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me, I can explain that very clearly. As I said above, the difficulty with empty domains is certain inference rules that permit quantifiers to be passed across logical connectives. For concreteness, look at

${\displaystyle \forall y(y=y)\lor \exists x(x=x)}$

This is satisfied by an empty domain. To put this in prenex normal form, we want to move the existential quantifier to obtain

${\displaystyle \exists x(\forall y(y=y)\lor x=x)}$

But this new formula is not satisfied by an empty domain, as there is no element with which the existential quantifier can be instantiated. The underlying issue is that the scope of the existential quantifier has changed to include the left disjunct.

The reason that empty (that is, identically false) relations don't cause this problem is that there is no similar notion of passing a relation symbol across a logical connective, enlarging its scope in the process.— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will poder this carelfully when next on-line. Meanile I have posted you admirable explantion to our article pro tem under notes. where all may read--Philogo 13:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This made me think about something for the first time. In set theory, there is a generalized quantifier

${\displaystyle Q_{A}x\phi \equiv \exists x\in A(\phi )}$

which states that there is an element x in the set A that satisfies formula φ. The equivalence

${\displaystyle [\psi \lor \exists x\in A(\phi )]\leftrightarrow \exists x\in A(\psi \lor \phi )}$

requires both that x is not free in ψ and that A is nonempty. The issue I discussed above is a reflection of the same behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are getting something out of this discussion

Philogo, the problem with the empty domain is not really a problem, it is more like an inconvenience of having always to consider this case separately, because the reasoning of the sort "let x be an arbitrary element of the domain..." will no longer work. There are no problems in general with having "properties" not satisfied by any elements of the domain. (Sorry if my comment is not to the point, i have not read all of the discussion. Feel free to remove it.) --Cokaban (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is to the point. Other have asked "why is there this requirement" (non-empty domain.) I have anticapited the further query "Wny is it allowed for properties" . I good answers to put in the articele, where they now are under notes.--Philogo 13:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Call it a hunch, but I think you may have an opinion on the discussion about what to put it the section on philosophy of logic. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save yourself a lot of pain. Please just kindly post your reasoning on why the recent addition to the logic template of "logical positivism", by Greg Bard, with no citations and no definitions should stand. Jok2000 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hullo Gregbard and Jok2000. Am I invited into another dispute? Well Gregbard, your intuitions have certainally picked up on something, but not QUITE spot on. I was not about to make a comment on the logic template but having become a little weary of editing (logic) articles I was about to have a look at Philosphy of Logic articel whcih looks quite forlarn. If either of you join me there, please be presere civility and rationality, and do not revert without giving a reason first in the discussion page. Peace ---- and Reason--Philogo 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Jok2000, you ask me to post my reasoning on why the recent addition should stand. Are you not assuming that I think that they should stand?--Philogo 09:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I am interested in helping out at the Philosophy of Logic. I would probably want to have a book to cite from, but would want to buy a book that you would accept citations from. Searching on amazon has been slow. Is there one you would like me to use? Jok2000 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jok2000 (talk). My suggestion would be that you choose a topic about which you would be interested or have some knowledge and work on that. That might involve looking at one or possible more texts. Depending on your knowledge and motivation etc. you might work alone or in collaboration, either by writinng an article or helping edit it for readabilty, checking citations, demanding explantions & so on. If this makes sense, IS there a topic that appeals and in what role(s) would you feel most comfortable? Depending on what you say I can suggest some texts. --Philogo 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:Philosophy of logic

Hi Rick.Rick Norwood Re your recent postings re propositions and statements Untangling and clarification of these and similar terms falls within the province of philosophy of logic rather than Logic. It would be better to discuss then set out these issues in the nascent article philosophy of logic discussion at Talk:Philosophy of logic#Truth, Propositions and Meaning. If you owuld be intersted in this topic join me there.--Philogo 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that we are both working on logic articles. I don't want to duplicate effort. Since you seem to be coordinating this work, if you would like to assign me an article, I'll be glad to work on it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick. I had not so much thought of myself as co-ordinating as being last man left standing in poor WikiProject Logic. I imagine you are looking at the Wikiproejct task list pages in need of attention. I have been adding to the list from time to time in hopes of attracting some attention. If you look I have annotated lines "edit in pregress" when true. I suggest we use that list as our things-to-do. I know I have shadowed you today. either working together on an article is useful and enjoyable or just irratating. If the former, lets carry on, if the latter then we let each other edit an article by themselves until done. Please add to the to-do list time-to-time; & we better remove items when we have that "good enough for now" feeling.

There has been bad blood between an editor and those he calls "mathpeople". That has been v divisive and led to the decline of WikiLogic.

This is an unfair characterization. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pontiff Greg Bard

Actually I'd say this is a generous characterization.

My last remark above described the drama rather than the actors. If bad blood and divisive are to overstate the problem, then constructive would be to err in the opposite direction. It has been suggested, that a reason for the inactivity of WikiProject Logic is that mathematical logic is in the process of cutting its ties to philosophy. Perhaps, perhaps, but that would be a matter for sociology, or history. Many matters once part of philosophy have left the nest, changed their names, and started families of their own. (Remember Natural Philosophy and Mental Philosophy?) Bless them, and wish them well! What I would like to see I say below. --Philogo 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Philogo, I do not insult people directly as others very often do to me. It seems that there is a need by some to talk about how stupid and ignorant I am. All I ever claim is that there are things that I understand, which other people do not understand, and I am often surprised by it. As far as the "mathpeople" are concerned. That obviously isn't personal. Furthermore, it is an accurate characterization, and there has been at least some conciliation on that issue (although the strong bias isn't going away). I wish that there was discussion by others about the culture here when I first started. This way I would have known more about the pragmatic realities here sooner. I am going to have to make an effort to document these attacks on myself more completely, and wrestle them to the ground, lest we have this kind of impression that you have. Please relent. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard. Just in case its not clear, the line begining "Actually" are not my words but an unsigned remark added today.

If you look back (I think on this page) you will find when I first joined this merry throng I was bemused about your account of how things had been for you editing. I had not imagined that editing articles on logic for an encyclopedia (with no OR) of all things could engender, how should I put it, such "colourful" exchanges. I imagined I could ignore all that and just write or edit the odd article from time to time. It is true that I have "scolded" you and other for being rude to one another and suggested we proceed with the cool quite voice of reason. I can imagine that such remarks can be irritating ("incredibably condescending" I think was one characterisation) but not, per se, rude. No offence to any party has been intended, to you or any others. I was cross when the Logic logo was abolished and articles split bewteen maths and philosophy and I admit that I thought you had a lot to do with it and have suggested as much on this page. I am sorry if that was unjust, but I am still cross and I still think it was misguided. You have asked me to relent; tell me what you would like me to do less of, or better still, more of (if its not "bugger off". (I wonder if that last will attract a WikiRepremand) If you wonder what I would like, it is still what I say below. Now cheer up! --Philogo 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) (NB zero Sharp I have signed my comment.--Philogo 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are perfectly justified in being upset about the organization of wp:logic. I just don't know how to make everybody happy given the overlapping issues. I took the initiative, and now everyone is angrier than if I just did nothing. We at least have a place for "philosophical logic" (a distinction which meant almost nothing to me previously), whereas there was no place until that time.

I try to stay focused on the content and concepts. However, I receive more than my share of attacks. They aren't from you, however, you have joined in, when I wished you wouldn't. For the record, there is nothing more obvious to me than the fact that you and the others are perfectly intelligent, knowledgeable, competent, and wonderful people even if there is not complete understanding. I just wish that the tone wasn't wasn't so condescending against me all the time. The latest deletion from your talk page is the latest example, and a snipe at myself on talk:logical consequence was another. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see joint effort on Logic articles of mutual interest to philosophers and mathematical logicians, and I suggest we call such just Logic articles. Articles which are purely/mainly philosophy of logic should be in that article. Take a look at it if you are that way minded. I think it would be better if people did not describe themselves as either mathematicans of philosophers (you will see that I never have: for all you know I am a BIV [ brain in a vat]) but instead just get on with editing articles if they are willing and able to do so.

Lets for now chat here from time to time on what next to do and how.--Philogo 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the {{hangon}} tag with which you started this page. Rather counterintuitively, adding this tag in fact adds your page to the list of candidates for deletion! You'd be safer leaving it off until someone actually tags the page for deletion. I'm not certain of the function of this page right now: disambiguation pages usually consist of libks out to other articles, of which there are none here. Also, I'm not sure what purpose the page serves while the Formal language page seems to be pretty comprehensive. Disambig pages are usually needed for titles which have little or nothing in common with one another: see WP:D for more details. Let me know if I can help in making this page work the way you want it to. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I tagged it hangon becase message said it was about to be deleted. The purpose of ths disambiguity page is discussed on the Formal language talk page, where you will see that various editors have claimed is is far form compprehensve, and it would appear there is a deal of talking at cross purposes becasue the term has apparenly different meanings in different sujects. JUST what a diambiguation page if intended to sort out, is it not? Cheers.--Philogo 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll read the talk page you refer to soon (just about to go out right now.) But in response to your last question: I think the answer is NO! A disambig page is to point people to articles with the same name but very different meanings - eg Mercury could refer to a planet, a metal, a space program and several other unrelated things. You're proposing a page about SIMILAR things with slightly differenty names and definitions, which is not a disambiguation page in the sense Wikipedia uses the term. Have a good read of WP:D for more information which may help in framing the page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fair enough, but if the term IS ambiguus, then the article Formal language will need to be split and other atricles will be needed. So let it ride a while would you - otherwise the discussioon page for Formal language will go on and on with everybody talkinng at cross-purposes and getting cross with each other like an infernal tower of babel.--Philogo 13:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the suggestion that the term Fromal Language has different meanings in the fields of logic, mathematical logic, mathematics, computer science, linguistics and philosophy is not proven (although this does not entail that it is not true, of course). It therefore seem unlikey that seperate articles will be forthcoming and therfore there is no need for the diambiguity page I created in anticipation. Thfore I have deleted it.--Philogo 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Interpretation(disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Philosophy/Quotations, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Might I suggest, please; If you wish to discuss a new topic on a talk page, beginning a new section, remember to begin with a top-level header '=='. Using '=' seems to mess it up, thanks. --NewbyG (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look: that must be at Philosophy/talk? --Philogo 08:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Twas at Talk/Philosophy. Some further information here and here, no worries. Or, just ask if you have further questions about this stuff.--NewbyG (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how and why Philosophy/Quotations was archived? I created this page with the indea that it would be a permanent sub-page. --Philogo 09:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That page is best kept at Talk:Philosophy/Quotations, I would say, where it can be a permanent sub-page. It is a reference and resource for the talk page, but such a title is unsuitable for article space. --NewbyG (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What make you say such a title is unsuitable for article space (as sub page)? IS there soe wiki-policy for sub-pages?

--Philogo 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Subpages : Except in "main" namespace (="article namespace"), where the subpage feature has been disabled in English Wikipedia, subpages are pages separated with a "/" (a forward slash) from their 'parent' page.

There's this. --NewbyG (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links to the top of this page. Hope you find them useful. You should have got a welcome message soon after you began contributing to WP, but these things happen. Cheers. --NewbyG (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions to our supporter of AR are a delight - please keep it up! --Snowded (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warn me if I transgress any bounds--Philogo 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with this revision of corresponding conditional? I made these changes to improve the original's style and clarify many of the points. I believe your revision is confusing, poorly formatted, and contains several style mistakes. I am going to revert your changes back to the previous version. There may be aspects of my revision that you do not agree with. If you would like to discuss these changes, please introduce your questions and comments on the article's talk page, do not simply revert the entire article back to the old revision. --Beefyt (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought there were quite a few things wrong with it so I made some further revisions. Feel free to improve it some more, or discuss on the talk page. You and I are the only editors to work on this article.--Philogo 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I would like to respond to your suggestion on the philosophy talk page, but I've just been blocked indefinitely! Seems someone objected to a posting I made about inappropriate sourcing on 'totalitarianism' by neocons...

viz: "Sockpuppetry : Docmartincohen, Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels all confirmed as the same already-blocked account and blocked accordingly. Wikipedia is not a platform for professional disputes or attacks on living persons. IP edits are also easily spotted and will be reverted and blocked as necessary - David Gerard (talk ) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC '

In fact, several people use this computer... Even if it were true, this seems a long delayed adminstrative sanction against historical activities...? Scarcely serving any legitimate 'prevention of abuse' purpose. I've checked up: ther first 3 were blocked several months ago, Wikisquirrels who has made no controversial edits at all is being blocked today but has not made any edits for several months. My own account, - of course- is beyond reproach! I was just getting into the careful copy checking of the philosphy pages, when I came across a fake quotation about Hitler's views of Marxism, which I found sourced to an American neo-conservative, whose views were quite obviously part of a politically directed campaign. I raised the matter on WIkiedia review and lo!

If anyone can help to get the block lifted, I'll be pleased to get back to this interesting issue and provide some references.

86.220.94.247 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC) (as docmartin cohen)[reply]

You could provide some citations/refs here and other editors could research them.--Philogo 12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't block a whole IP range over this - just revert on sight. I'll semi-protect relevant article pages later tonight - typing on the run atm. Just let me know what they are. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm considering a rewrite of most of counterfactuals. I am doing an independent study on them right now, and there is a lot of extremely influential work that is missing. I am new to wikipedia, and this would be my first extensive revision. Would you be willing to help out?Pjwerner (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will if you take the lead and I follow (i.e. comment/edit). OK?

Sounds good. Give me a few days, I'm pretty busy this week. Pjwerner (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK: let me know what you will be reading.--Philogo 13:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My area of expertise is mathematics. I've picked up some info on US politics by reading and keeping up with the news -- just enough to tell a bald-faced lie when I read one. But I know almost nothing about European politics, and almost never write anything on the subject. I know more about the politics of Ancient Greece and Rome than I do about the politics of modern Britain and France. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I am content with articles has nothing to do with this portal. Did Jimbo appoint you the wikiboss of portals? Did he tell you that you can disrupt Wikipedia portals over issues that have nothing to do with the portal? If you continue this incessant discussion on this portal talk page of irrelevant issues about how content I am with articles I will make a WP:ANI report. Consider this my only warning. Drop it and move on. This is a portal talk page, not an article talk page or my personal or your personal talk page. Stop disrupting this page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Portal talk:Thinking for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on talk page. NB I have made no edits to the portal.--Philogo 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not discuss on Portal talk:Thinking and continue to encourage your disruptive behavior. NB: You can disrupt Wikipedia on a talk page just as easily as you can on any other page. Read WP:TALK. This is the second time I have given you the link. And if you disrupt Portal talk:Thinking again be prepared to defend yourself at WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to discuss Portal talk:Thinking on my user page, but thank you for visiting--Philogo 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, could you sign your post with four tildes? It will make it easier for people to communicate with you. Ad far as the article goes, AFDs have to be decided by an independent admin after five days of discussion. Several people have proposed renaming/moving the article. If an independent admin okays that, I am fine with it. I would only ask two things: firswt, that you and another well-informed contributor to philosophy articles shepard its improvement - as it is it is just poorly written and not fully compliant with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Second, it has to be written (or rewritten) in a way that makes it crystal clear how it is different from Truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the signature. re "If an independent admin okays that": Ooops: I HAVE renamed it. Re. "it has to be written (or rewritten". I imagine Wiki project Phil of Mind should pick it up. Not my forte pro tem. Anyway its out of the hair of lingustics is it not? I share your irritation with articles that read like essay with waffle and POV.--Philogo 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to check your preferences/settings; your signature still seems not to link to your page/talk page, or is that intentional? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? - I had no idea. I'll investigate forthwith.--Philogo 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right - when I sign my name using the button that generates for tildes it does not produce a link. A link is shown in the history of any article I have edited however. I have looked at preferences but I cannt see any option that swiches links on or off. --Philogo 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Test sign with four tildes from keyboard Philogo 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)No better--Philogo 23:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Post uncheck 'raw signature' in preferences--Philogo (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Eureka--Philogo (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete material to add a "prod" request, it looks like vandalism when you do so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the talk page? I did not delete material in order to add a prod request; why do you suggest I did? I created the article by merging tow others. Following discussion I resplit the article as discussed on the talk page. Then I blanked the page. A day or so later I sought a delete as per Wiki help, and left a note on the note page. Please be more specific about what you are warning me not to do and how it is at variance with Wiki policy. --Philogo (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything wrong as far as I can tell. I tagged it for prod the way they want it.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered who did. I looked on the help page to see how to proceed if you want to del a page. It read along the lines that (a) any ed can move a page (b) any ed can blank a page (c) humble eds should flag something for deletion with prod request. I followed (b) and two days later (c) I got ticked off for using the wrong template, and above for "looks like vandalism". You see I replied to Carlossuarez46 abovr, but he ahs not come back to me. Is he one of those admin editors, is just a humbe ed like me. How can you tell? Is he perhaps a bot? I find it disturbing to get wernings on my tal-page, but I suppose just anybody could plonk them all over the palce just to wind people up. How DO you "prod the way they want it", where is that documented, and why cannot Carlossuarez46 say?.--Philogo (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big time deletionist, so I don't know what more they want. Usually I only delete things that are obvious (administrative, sandbox, or organizational stuff). I usually use {{db|reason for delete ...}}. I thought this looked pretty obvious. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Ta--Philogo (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Philosophy of logic and philosophical logic, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

title

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. pablo_hablo. 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the above - did you intend to create it in your userspace? pablo_hablo. 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it, I assumed that was the case. See User:Philogo/TruthbearerSandbox/Examples sentences used in this article. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was just experimenting with the request for deletion tag. How DO you generate it? --Philogo (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can install a gadget called Twinkle via your user preferences which will giive you a handy set of tools for generating these tags. pablo_hablo. 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit complicated. On original point I created a page called [[Philogo/TruthbearerSandbox/Examples sentences used in this article]] when I SHOULD have called it [[User:Philogo/TruthbearerSandbox/Examples sentences used in this article]]. Is that right?--Philogo (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly. Pages without a prefix (like User:) count as "mainspace"; and hence should only be encyclopedia articles. To get one in your userspace, you need to make sure you have the User: prefix. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. It has nothing to do with the content, it was just plain vandalism. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philogo, question for you on the above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin: could not find any question at Talk:Ian Tomlinson. Eureka: Found and replied at Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson

Peterloo Massacre -- excellent addition. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Randist intrusion I see.... --Snowded (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...--Philogo (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would say that Hitler was a notable painter, in a sense. But I am joking. We are having some very bad Karbinksi problems, please feel free to join us on the [[Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) |Objectivism talk page]]. Peter Damian (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mdst has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mdstype has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iff has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic?. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should make an article encompassing all sides of Protest in the United Kingdom. I thought that you may be interested. I've started a rough outline at User:Smartse/Protest in the United Kingdom. Please help and add either links to other articles or to sources. Thanks Smartse (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the section because it seems pretty useless. It contains inaccurate and misleading information, and it is nowhere near complete. To have a more complete section would require a Herculean effort. In any case, if the article has already discussed topics and disciplines - as it should (though it doesn't currently) - then the presence of a list is questionable (in an encyclopedia). Does that sound right? Perhaps I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsoflogic (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section "see also" in which these might should go (if worthy). If you delete a whole section in the way you have then suggest put reason (e.g. as above) on talk page.--Philogo (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my link to the Wiktionary? I just thought that "colloquial" is a goofy word that people may not know the definition of. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not improve an article to have a link to Wiktionary for every word that people may not know the definition of. Philogo (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundness#soundness

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think my edits ARE marked as monor by default, with a little "m", and another editor has objected to this - see below. I have looked on my preferences and there is no way I can see for the preference to be set one way or the other. I had the impression that it was going to be set to false, but this has not happened. Is it possible to swich it off somehow - anything for a quiet life! — Philogos (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not in the majority for describing this solely as a "logic" article. If you want a page on logical argument, I would invite you to create one at Argument (logic).

Otherwise, see the Logic page for a definition of logic as the study of "correct reasoning."

Brush up. User:Walkinxyz (not logged in).

PLease disuss article on its talk page, not here.— Philogos (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, please respect the in-use tag. It's an FA and I'm trying to update and tidy it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reveresed my edit while I was in the middle of it. I'm all done now. See my remarks on the talk page, re the inquest. We can now shcne the lede to say he was unlawfully killed (conce that has been determined in court) We may say "by a PC" by not name home - follwoing the cautaly jury ruling (whihc I have out on the talk page). If you disagree with my edits please put reasons on talk page rather han just reverting, OK?— Philogos (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Phil, no, you reverted my edits while I was in the middle of them—even after I placed the in-use tag on the page, and even after I posted here, and on the talk page, asking you to respect it.

It's an FA. It has to be updated, and a certain quality has to be maintained. If you see someone doing that, please allow it to continue, rather than intervening so they're forced to stop. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my edits please put reasons on talk page rather than just reverting. I see another editor has reverted you for removing cited material without giving reasons on the talk page.— Philogos (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". If you continue to misuse the minor edits check box, you may be blocked from editing. Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy: why have you left me this reminder message? Do you have some particlur edit of mine in mind?— Philogos (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Philogo

See the little "m" next to every single edit?

Now look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philogo&action=history

Notice how only your edits have the little "m"?

That little "m" means you checked the "This is a minor edit (what's this?)" Box when you made your edit.

The reminder message I posted above has a link to Help:Minor edit.

The "This is a minor edit (what's this?)" Box that is at the bottom of the edit box every time you edit Wikipedia also has a link to Help:Minor edit.

Please go and read Help:Minor edit now.

Please start doing what Help:Minor edit says to do.

Please stop doing what Help:Minor edit says not to do.

If you continue to misuse the minor edits check box, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy. Thanks for the reply. Yes I see the little "m"s: have you read "Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference" which may shed some light on their appearance. Are there any particular edits of mine to which you object - I think I have only noticed your name on tlak pages just recently, when you queried my revert to the lede in the Philosophy article but after some discussion with other editors you accpeted my edit. Is this what has upset you or some wider issue?— Philogos (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you think I am "upset" or disagree with you. I just want to improve Wikipedia, and I am a strong believer in following consensus. Along the way, I noticed someone who was making a mistake - marking every edit as minor - so I used the standard reminder template at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-minor - just as I would expect other editors to do if i was making a mistake on every edit. Nothing personal. Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were upset about something because you went to the trouble of leaving a message on my talk pages about the "minor edit" flag which appears after my edits, suggesting I might be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Have you left similar messages on other editors talk pages? I have never had any complaint about this before, although I have been editing for a good few years, so it cannot be that harmful. You said above That little "m" means you checked the "This is a minor edit (what's this?)" Box when you made your edit. Actually you are not quite right there: I have NEVER checked the little box, it is checked by default. If you read the message I got above it explains that there is a "preference" you could select to "mark my edits minor by default". I believe that the preference was or is "Yes" by default. I looked at my preferences page and I can see no way of turning it on or off, but I have asked whether it can be switched off. Until this happens can you put up with the litte "m"s? Even if I promised to, I just know I would never remember to uncheck that box every time I made an edit. — Philogos (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on getting the hidden "all edits minor by default" option unchecked for you and all other Wikipedia users. This was a bit of a screwup by the software developers. They should not have made the option invisible thus leaving you stuck with no way to change it. Thanks for your patience while we sort this out. Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the following message from one of the developers:

• "I wrote a script for this and ran it just now. 32,640 users were affected. All of them have now had their minordefault preference removed from the preferences table; this should fix the issue. Because I interrupted the script at some point, it's possible that the preference will come back for up to 100 users. If this happens, post a comment on this bug and I'll rerun the script. Unfortunately, the identity of these users is unknown, so I can't fix this problem before it happens, only after."

Please check to see if the option is now turned off. I will follow through and get it fixed if it wasn't. Again, thanks for your patience with this annoying software glitch. Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

testing. Minor edit check box now false by default

— Philogos (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the sweet smell of success. And, we fixed the problem for 32,639 other users as well. Unwatching this talk page now. Cheers! Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Philogo

Do you think its moral for the United States and Israel to defend themselves? Further, do you think its moral for Iran to seek to destroy either the USA or Israel?

I'm curious if you have an objective standard or into the subjectivist ethic. I believe all individuals (and consequently the societies they live in) should always act in their self-interest, and that Iran's self interest is not the same thing as their leadership's desires. Iran's regime has no right to exist as it forfeits that by being explicitly and fundamentally opposed to respecting individual rights, whereas both Israel and the USA while mixed - are fundamentally good on account of respecting individual rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbinski (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 June 2011

You said publically : "Let us take our enemies chance to nuke New York City away from them forever. Let us destroy our enemies now. All it takes is for America to act fully in its own interests. That means we the people must not only act in our own selfish interest, but understand that it is the morally right thing to do." and "I think ALL countries should act fully in their own interests" ergo all countries should bomb their enemies, ergo enemies of the USA should bomb the USA and your enemies should try and kill you as you them. Does that not follow? Is that not what you are saying? PS Don't be shy to sign your comments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philogo (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 June 2011--

You say "ergo all countries should bomb their enemies, ergo enemies of the USA should bomb the USA and your enemies should try and kill you as you them. Does that not follow?" No it does not follow as not every nation/society is morally equivalent. All moral societies have the right to self-defense, and all evil regimes have no right to exist. Israel acting in its self-interest is identifying that peace with those determined to destroy you is and always will be non-existent, Iran acting in its self-interest is dissolve its theocracy and re-create itself as a republic that respects individual rights. There is a small chance for the former, and a tiny chance for the latter. So... Do you think its moral for the United States and Israel to defend themselves? Further, do you think its moral for Iran to seek to destroy either the USA or Israel? --Karbinski (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said (publically) "I think ALL countries should act fully in their own interests" not "I think moral societies should act fully in their own interests": perhaps you have changed your mind?— Philogos (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think ALL countries should act fully in their own interests. For example (as given above): "Israel acting in its self-interest is identifying that peace with those determined to destroy you is and always will be non-existent, Iran acting in its self-interest is dissolve its theocracy and re-create itself as a republic that respects individual rights." So no, I haven't changed my mind. ... So Do you think its moral for the United States and Israel to defend themselves? Further, do you think its moral for Iran to seek to destroy either the USA or Israel? --Karbinski (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen; I couldn't help but notice the above conversation while trying to resolve a software bug (see above) The original comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophy/Archive_26#Rand.2C_Plagiarism_and_POV_editing should not have been made, because the page they were posted on has a box at the top that clearly says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article Philosophy." The part of the conversation where a political blogger is quoted had nothing to do with improving the article, and thus should not have been there.

Now I see you continuing the conversation here, but that is also against Wikipedia policies. Please see WP:OWNTALK, Which clearly states "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." None of the above is directed solely toward the improvement of Wikipedia, and thus does not belong here. There are other places where such discussions are welcome; I suggest http://www.reddit.com as a particularly nice one. Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your post on my page; read it now, as I'm expecting it to get deleted real soon now, and then I'll be blocked for a few days or a week, and that will be that. linas (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still just 4 (consecutive edits count as 1). He's usually pretty quick to revert though. But the noticeboard is also usually pretty quick too... I'm sure no admin wants to have to process another admin when they're behaving that badly but... I'll try to AGF that they're not sitting on their hands until they can say it went stale. Stho002's made it clear he has no intention of stopping. Did you see ProjPhi Talk, the crud on his shoe remark at Jon, and the edit summary, “Why the long face honey”? Way over the top. I've got mail.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK my bad count. Yes I saw the "honey” appelation; I was previously dignified as "buster". By "I've got mail" do you mean Stho002 has emailed you? Also note the repeated suggestions that editors are ganging up on him, and that those who disagree with him/her are wrong, and that he is an expert. Reminds me somewhat of [[PARRY]|Parry] ( Eliza's succesor) the paranoid young man. Sigh. — Philogos (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AOLism, "talk page post" I should have said... Hey, they wound up giving him a 24h block. Did you notice what he added on that second edit? “See also growing block universe.”

Now that you mention it, I guess I'm "Niro"... Rome wasn't burnt in day (or was it?).

His comments about being a mirror might suggest those sorts of mind games. On the other hand, he brags about bending and breaking the rules, so playing the victim isn't his strong suit. Sometimes it's almost like he consults a magic 8 ball or rolls D&D dice for how he's going to react: like snapping bitterly at the prospect of someone, (at long last...) who's ambivalent / maybe even supportive of his version, except for those last few tweaks (how dare he?!) Wow, I did not see that coming.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Philosophy for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What would it be like if human beings showed no outward signs of pain (did not groan, grimace, etc.)? Then it would be impossible to teach a child the use of the word 'tooth-ache'." — Well, let's assume the child is a genius and himself invents a name for the sensation!—But then, of course, he couldn't make himself understood when he used the word.—So does he understand the name, without being able to explain its meaning to anyone?—But what does it mean to say that he has 'named his pain'?—How has he done this naming of pain?! And whatever he did, what was its purpose?—When one says "He gave a name to his sensation" one forgets that a great deal of stage-setting in the language is presupposed if the mere act of naming is to make sense. And when we speak of someone's having given a name to pain, what is presupposed is the existence of the grammar of the word "pain"; it shows the post where the new word is stationed."

(Philosophical Investigations, § 257)

Hello!

My name is Gabriel, and I represent a startup company called Planeto (http://planeto.com).

We are currently developing a new type of community we call the Planeto Knowledge Network.

We all have knowledge and interests in various forms, of different topics and areas. We might even be experts at something. Our Knowledge Network is an attempt to gather and connect people who have a passion, and would love to share that passion by communicating their insights and knowledge with other people with similar interests.

After finding you here at Wikipedia, I thought you would be a nice candidate to join the invite-only beta and manage a domain of knowledge regarding Logic, which you seem quite proficient in!

Sounds interesting? Send me a mail to gabriel@planeto.com and I'll invite you to our closed beta!

Have a nice day :)

Zedekiel (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we're doing a school project to create a wikipedia page and I've chosen to create the page for the list of valid logical forms. I've noticed that you're pretty active within the logic pages on the site so I was wondering if there was any advice you could give, and I look forward to your help. Thanks again! User: Pdyoung

Hello:

Would you please consider including a link to your user/talk page in your signature, as laid out here:

"Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive."

Thanks.

BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

If I sign in and edit a page and click the four tildes to insert signature nothing is inserted. If I do not sign in and click on the four tildes then the anon signature is added. If I manually type four tildes this happens: start — Philogos (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC) end[reply]

I have copied this here from User talk:Newbyguesses - it's best to place a help request on your own talk page or on the page where the problem is.

I'm not sure what you mean by "click the four tildes"? You can enter a signature either by typing four tildes manually, or by clicking on the "signature" icon in the row above the edit window, about sixth from the left, which will look like [[

File:Insert-signature.png|link=|alt=]]

or possibly [[

File:Signature icon.png|link=|alt=]]

. More explanation at WP:Signatures. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

By "click the four tildes" I meant "clicking on the four tildes in the bar below the edit window and following the words

"Sign your posts on talk pages". This inserts nothing. I have now tried "clicking on the "signature" icon in the row above the edit window" and rather than inserting anything this merely moves the cursor to the top left of edit window.

— Philogos (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you select the preferences menu on the top of the page there is a section there to create a signature. You should include at least one link to your user or talk page in it [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] would insert a link to my user page and [[User talk:Amortias|Talk]] would include a link to my talk page. You can be a bit more creative the more adept at coding you are but a starter for ten would be to include the two links (replacing my name with your own of course). Amortias (T)(C) 22:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I already have a signature that's not the problem! The problem is that I cannot insert the signature using the signature icon. I have to manually type the four tiles like this: — Philogos (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked that the signature icon works for me; this might be a browser-related issue on your end, or possibly the icon may require JavaScript (I'm pretty sure the "link" and "embedded file" icons do). My suggestion would be to check JavaScript first; if that fails, try a different browser. If it still doesn't work, you may want to ask at WP:Village pump (technical), but I expect they'll need more information on your system to give meaningful advice. Huon (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

The signature icon works when using Opera 24 but not when using Internet Explorer 11.--— Philogos (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect random editors to do about that? It's very likely a problem on your end; check your browser settings. As I suggested above, maybe your IE has JavaScript deactivated. If you really think it's a more general problem, WP:Village pump (technical) would be the place to raise the issue. Huon (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there? I wanted to ask you a question. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC) It is I.[reply]

Sophophile720 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)== Feedback ==[reply]

  I'll keep this short, I type this in the hope that I can have a bit of your time. I lack any formal education outside of the American high school system nor does my family or friends, till I start college properly I might never as such I've been resorted to messaging a stranger with little to no real information about you accept the ideologies I see on your talk page. My request is that I have an ongoing series of ideologies that I hope to convert into a more fluid philosophy I currently have around 10 to 15 pages of work scattered amongst my laptop plus the notebooks I carry with me. Before I give the main subject of what I hope for you to most likely tear to shreds please keep in mind that this will most likely be a waste of your time, I have no formal education in philosophy however I still do enjoy and spend my days often thinking about subjects that no one around seems to give me the feedback I'm looking for. I'm subconscience of this but in simple terms what I wish to present to you is that "your perspective makes your reality" I delve into reality breaking it into 3 parts and explain perspective in a sense I barely grasp myself honestly, so let me give you something I'm stuck at and hopefully it catches your interest and is hopefully not just complete rubbish.  
   One perspective equals an unanswerable question since only one will ever be able to answer it than being oneself. to ask one's perspective is equal to one answering if they thought of oneself first or the others. however, if another is asking the one then it does not know the answer, so the one can not use the other to give an answer since the other knows nothing. unless one assumes the other is equal to itself just to a lesser degree.
 this is a bit abstract and I have more just no more written like this mostly since I feel math in this but I don't know mathematics well enough to know where to begin with it ( though I've still tried). this however, is part of my perspective section hopefully you wouldn't mind reading what I wrote and if not please point me in a direction that I can get feedback from. if you read all of this thank you for your time sorry for any grammar and spelling mistakes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8600:1C26:58B4:4445:3DDC:D6C6 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]