The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Aristotle's system of logic formed the foundation of logical thought for more than 2,000 years until the advent of modern symbolic logic?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Other talk page banners
The contents of the Formal logic page were merged into Logic. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Symbolic logic page were merged into Logic. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Advances in Algebra and Logic, Scientific Research: An Academic Publisher (from scirp.org, the site is blacklisted so the URL cannot be added), 2023
The referencing style is very, very inconsistent. There is no hope for a GA or an FA unless it is made consistent. I will happily do this in the same style as Black Monday (1987). I already have a major start at User:Lingzhi.Renascence/sandbox. Completely finishing it might take 2 more hours, but having 2 hours free time might take 2 days. [It might still look rough, but I know how to fix everything]... After that, I would copy everything over from my sandbox to here. Let me know if anyone has any objections § Lingzhi (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that with "consistent reference style" you mean replacing all regular reference tags in the body of the article with shortened footnotes. I think it's a good idea and I agree that this would be beneficial for a possible FAC. Thanks for putting all the work into this. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of making some changes to your sandbox, I hope you don't mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
System changed. Actually, the style was more than 90% consistent, but there were many cites here and there in more than 1 different style. I assume they were added by a variety of editors. There were also sometimes many full citations of the same book, one for each page or section that was being referenced. Finally, I think the {{sfn}} format is more readable, not only in the References section as displayed, but in the underlying wikitext of the body text. § Lingzhi (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... that Aristotle's system of logic formed the foundation of logical thought for over 2000 years until the advent of modern symbolic logic? Source: Haaparanta, Leila (2009). "1. Introduction". The development of modern logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN978-0-19-513731-6.
ALT1: ... that paraconsistent logic is a type of formal logic that can be used to draw meaningful conclusions from contradictory information? Source: Priest, Graham; Tanaka, Koji; Weber, Zach (2022). "Paraconsistent Logic". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Introduction, 1. Paraconsistency. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
ALT2: ... that logic distinguishes between deductive arguments, which preserve truth, and ampliative arguments, which are not as certain but arrive at new information? Source: Hintikka, Jaakko; Sandu, Gabriel (2006). "What is Logic?". In Jacquette, D. (ed.). Philosophy of Logic. North Holland. p. 13. ISBN978-0-444-51541-4. Archived from the original on 7 December 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021. Inferences can be either deductive, that is, necessarily truth preserving, or ampliative, that is, not necessarily truth preserving. This distinction can be identified with the distinction between such steps in reasoning as do not introduce new information into one's reasoning and such as do not do so.
Mirrors have picked up the article. Bruxton (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "like the modus ponens" to "such as the modus ponens".
Change "like inferring that all ravens are black" to "such as inferring that all ravens are black".
+ check the rest of the article for similar errors.
Honestly, an article about "logic", a featured article too, should not be making these kinds of horrible errors, mixing up "like" with "such as". 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:9D96:289E:22BD:C291 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with such strong opinions shouldn't be mixing up formal fallacies with informal fallacies based on the narrowest archaic definitions of words in human language. Remsense聊 00:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partially done by someone / Page is unprotected Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Navya-Nyaya and modern set theory
The reference https://www.jstor.org/stable/2106873 talks about fringe theory regarding its relationship with modern set theory and it was first added by the user jagged 85 on 25th March 2010 who was known to misuse his sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Myuoh kaka roi and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Could you clarify how your claim is relevant to the article? The source you mentioned is only used for one sentence. This sentence does not mention a relation between the Navya-Nyāya school and modern set theory. I don't know if this was different when the source was first added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user jagged 8 may have misused sources, but this source does support the sentence, and it is a reliable source although a bit old. Plus, there are plenty of other sources that support the same idea from a quick google search (e.g. [1][2]), including the SEP [3]. Shapeyness (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but can these reliable sources talk anything about modern set theory which was been subsiquently added to articles like Indian logic.It was once there in this article page but was subsequently removed. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-2 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lógica and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Lógica until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
@Phlsph7: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
