Talk:Predicate (mathematical logic)

?
Any chance of anyone explaining this so the average reader could get an understanding of what it means? Tyrenius 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow the new external link for an explanation.

S Sepp 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference, but that's hardly an acceptable solution to a poor article. Hoping someone actually has this on their watch list and notices that the problem still exists. MJKazin (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge
See Talk:Predicate (mathematics). --Abdull 11:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk: Predicate variable. Sae1962 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. Cleanup instead. There's a lot of confusion between the articles on propositional logic, first-order logic, term algebra, model theory, type theory, philosophy, general mathematics, and semantics(?). All have similar-but-different notions of predicates, but differ sharply in the details. I tried to clean up this article to make this clear, but I believe it has a loooong way to go.  linas (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Atomic formula
The follwoing in the article does not accord with Atomic formula and is surely wrong &mdash; Philogos (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In first-order logic, atomic formulae are called predicate variables. A predicate can take the role as either a property or a relation between entities.  When P is a predicate on X, one sometimes says that P is a property of X.


 * There were a lot of problems with the text, but I think I have removed most of them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusion
Thus seems confusing:
 * Informally, a predicate is a statement that may be true or false depending on the values of its variables.[citation needed] It can be thought of as an operator or function that returns a value that is either true or false.

better sruely would be
 * Informally, a predicate is an operator or function that returns a value that is either true or false. depending on the values of its variables.


 * I think it's better to say something like "a predicate can be represented by a function that ...". This avoids using the word "is" about the predicate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Then we have (a) predicate symbols(b) predicates (c) functions, and a predicate can be represented by a function. Eg

That gives us three ontological classes. On the princile of Ackhams razor, would it not be simpler to say &mdash; Philogos (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'F' is a predicate symbol [type (a)]
 * under an intepretation it, 'F', can be associated with a predicate, egs. prime, even [type (b)]
 * the prime, even and green can be represented by functions (from numbers to {t,f}
 * under an intepretation 'F', can be associated with a predicate, egs. prime, even which are functions (from numbers to {t,f}

formal definition
The following in para formal definition do not provide formal definitions of the term predicate.
 * In propositional logic, atomic formulae are called propositional variables.
 * In first-order logic, an atomic formula consists of a predicate symbol applied to an appropriate number of terms.

The article is about predicates not predicate symbols&mdash; Philogos (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So the items quoted do not provide a formal definition of the term predicate. (not to be conmsuded with the term predicate symbol or predicate letter

"atomic formula and an atomic sentence" ??? I was reading the article, and it was reasonable to follow, until I came across mention of "atomic formula and an atomic sentence". I've no idea what these are. No clue is given. What is this going on about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.82.159 (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
In its current form, the article augments rather than reduces confusion. To begin with, proposition and predicate are mixed up. Simply put, using the notation of the article, P(x) is a proposition and P is a predicate. This is the most commonly (although not universally) used terminology. The article should be cleaned up to reflect this. Boute (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong assertion at "Simplified overview" section

 * RIGHT. If t is an element of the set {x | P(x)}, then the statement P(t) is true.


 * WRONG. Here, P(x) is referred to as the predicate, and x the subject of the proposition.

The x variable is not the subject (supposing a context of subject – predicate – object ). See this example:
 * A = {x | the square is a subclass of x} and see the set of elements here. So, the set A was defined by the use of x as object not as subject of the phrase (the predicate of the set),
 * A = {rectangle, rhombus, hypercube, cross-polytope, ...}

P(x) is a template function, as in  where the symbol   is a placeholder to be replaced to anything. Correcting the WRONG to RIGHT:


 * RIGHT.  Here, P(x) is referred to as the predicate, and x the placeholder of the proposition. Sometimes, P(x) is also called a (template in the role of)  propositional function, as each choice of the placeholder x produces a proposition.

--Krauss (talk), 26 November 2017