Jump to content

Talk:Rule of inference

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Inference rule)
[edit]

List of rules of inference

Talk:List of rules of inference#The table with 3 columns and 12 rows under the heading "Table: Rules of Inference" is currently missing 8 different rows. 88.241.82.180 (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article

[edit]

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. Most of the text is currently unreferenced. Usually, the lead should summarize information found in the body of the article, not present new information, like it is done here.

Contentwise, a lot of information is currently missing. There are countless rules of inference and at least the most important ones should be discussed. It should be better explained that rules of inference belong to systems of logic. Different systems of logic have different rules of inference, like the contrasts between propositional logic and predicate logic or between classical and intuitionistic logic. Another point to mention would be the different formalisms of Hilbert systems, natural deduction, and sequent calculus. Other things to discuss would be the relation between rules of inference and logical truths, the problem of fallacies, and the role of rules of inference in the philosophy of logic regarding the contrast between the semantic and the syntactic conception of logic. Since some of these topics are quite abstract, one could add a section called "Basic concepts" to explain what logic, systems of logic, propositions, and inferences are. It further wouldn't hurt to mention some applications in fields like mathematical reasoning, computer science, expert systems, automated theorem proving, etc.

There are more things to consider, but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rule of inference/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Brent Silby (talk · contribs) 09:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

This article has excellent prose, no grammar mistakes, loads of reliable sources (even with pages mentioned!), no copyright issues, appropriate image captions and no edit wars in sight.

That said I have two suggestions for improving the breadth of its coverage and one suggestion concerning the image in the lead section:

1) "Further rules include conjunction introduction, disjunction introduction, constructive dilemma, destructive dilemma, double negation elimination, and De Morgan's laws." could this sentence be expanded with more examples? Are there any more rules that can be mentioned here?

2) This article has two tables titled "Notable rules of inference". However, they don't include such rules as (conjunction introduction, disjunction introduction, constructive dilemma, destructive dilemma, double negation elimination, and De Morgan's laws) that are mentioned elsewhere. Is it possible to create a separate table for them?

3) In addition to that, I have noticed that the lead image is rectangular. This means that it gets badly cropped on the thumbnail. Is it possible to have image with the exact same content but in a square instead of a rectangle?