Talk:Structural rule
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
resolution
editI have updated the resolution link to Resolution (logic). feel free to change it if you know a better place to redirect the link to. STHayden [ Talk ] 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Simple-language section needed
editThis article, like many mathematics articles, is written in a language that is entirely inaccessible to non-mathematicians. The subject matter, however, appears simple and could be made clear to the novice through simple, concrete examples of each rule. The article badly needs a general-audience section in simple language, placed before the formal-logic formulation. -- 169.230.94.21 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
mistake in weakening?
editI'm pretty sure (but pretty tired, so i didn't just change the article) that the second version of weakening should not be
but
80.109.45.190 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree (and I'm not tired at the moment), so I fixed it.Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- ... and then I unfixed it. The right side of a sequent should be understood as a disjunction, so is weaker than . Pi zero (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm, the correct rule is
The justification is—as observed—that is weaker than , and that a sequent can be read as "Assuming the conjunction of , we can show the disjunction of ".
For reference, see The Open Logic Text, Complete Version, §9.3 [1] 2001:8003:232E:CD01:3F:C4E8:D8AB:41AD (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Open Logic Project (2021). The Open Logic Text, Complete Version. Open Logic Project.