Talk:Logical consequence

This sentence should be entirely singular or entirely plural
The third sentence in the opening paragraph seems to be using the singular "its" to refer back to the plural "arguments" or "ones." A decision needs to be made by whoever wrote the paragraph or by a knowledgeable editor as to which the sentence should be: either entirely singular or entirely plural. Here are examples: "A valid logical argument is one in which its conclusions follow from its premises, and its conclusions are consequences of its premises"; or "A valid logical argument is one in which its conclusion follows from its premises, and its conclusion is a consequence of its premises"; or "Valid logical arguments are ones in which their conclusions follow from their premises, and their conclusions are consequences of their premises"; or perhaps merely "Valid logical arguments are ones in which conclusions follow from [their] premises, and conclusions are consequences of [their] premises." (I personally would prefer the second example which has a single conclusion following from multiple premises, such as in the famous: "All men are mortal; Einstein is a man; therefore, Einstein is mortal." But the writer should make the choice, not me.) Wikifan2744 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Thus"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Merged Entailment (pragmatics) to here
The page had no sources and was incomplete and a stub. "Entailment" already redirects here. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced this was a good idea. Of course, the two topics have a common fundamental idea behind them, but the two articles were in were in two different fields of knowledge (natural language semantics/pragmatics vs. formal logic) and I'm not sure I see how the two approaches can be reconciled within a single article. As for the other article being an unreferenced stub, an obvious remedy is to expand it with sources. – Uanfala (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Reverted. More investigation is required. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logical consequence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403201417/http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+consequence to http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+consequence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"formal" consequence
Defining all consequence relations as "formal" is a bit misleading. Especially when including a historical perspective like the quoted Asmus and Restall chapter. It is Tarskian consequence that is "formal". Asmus and Restall write on p. 15: "That logical consequence is schematic, and in this sense formal, is a traditional tenet of logical theory. There is far more controversy over other ways in which consequence may be formal.". It might be at least helpful to explicitly contrast formal consequence and material consequence, and then explain why "logical consequence" is typically associated with the former.