Talk:Syntax (logic)

CS
Syntax Logic is a Phenomenom which is used to translate program into Computer Language.

Syntactic completeness and Syntactic consequence
In spite of the names, those redirects have nothing to do with this article or concept. I don't think they should exist at all, but apparently the misnamed concepts have been merged, so something is necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. We need a cite, other than the Metalogic book which disagrees with everyone else on notation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We've already been through this issue. You thought "metalogic" was a neologism which, given the history is quite off. I think this is just an area of logic which you do not have a great deal of experience. That's not to say you don't know a lot, but I honestly think you've hit a blind spot here. I have seen these terms used in many sources in mathematical logic. You should really slow down before re-acting to my edits. Arthur. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I now think that although it is a neologism, it's accepted in some philosophy departments, but never in a mathematics or mathematical logic context. I'm willing to propose merger of the articles and categories unless you can provide a distinction.  But that's beside the point.  Even if the terms named in the section heading are accepted, the name here (Syntax (logic)) does not include them.  It's the difference between formal system and formal language, which you fail to note.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So in other words you agree with me that it is accepted terminology. I don't think merging so as to remove content is acceptable. If you mean to merge the content, then that is a good faith proposal. Otherwise I think you and others are very keen to abuse the rules to get what you want. You apparently want to delete material that is notable, and of interest to philosophers which is not respectful. I hope you don't take this as a cue to escalate, but rather to consider a good faith suggestion from myself. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. If it's accepted terminology, it doesn't belong with this article, but with Syntax (philosophy).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move not done. No support except Greg Bard supporting his own nomination. Fences &amp;  Windows  19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Syntax (logic) → — -- in order to be consistent with the category name of which this is the main article. Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Relisted.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Greg Bard 03:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this makes sense. "Logical" or "(logic)" is only for disambiguation; nobody says that. "Logical syntax" would be a syntax (of whatever kind) that is logical in the sense of making sense, not logical in the sense of having to do with logic as a discipline. Hans Adler 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose It will confuse our readers; this seems to be syntax that relates to a system of logic, not that a syntax is in itself constructed from logical ideas. Is this logical? :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   16:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- This proposal makes perfect sense. We need to differentiate between grammatical syntax and logical syntax.Greg Bard 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Logical syntax" is semantically ambiguous, as to whether "Logical" means referring to logic (correct sense) or as a synonym for "rational".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk)
 * However in this context it is very clear.Greg Bard (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a simple example presenting the confusion on this page, but WP:NPA prevents my pointing it out. — Arthur Rubin  (talk)
 * I just want to again state for the record that Arthur is again behaving uncivilly. You are being presumptuous, in your belief. Furthermore, if WP:NPA is preventing you from communicating something relevant, than perhaps you need to grow up a bit and learn how to communicate civilly. So go ahead and SHOW us how "confused" someone is Arthur. If there is ANY truth to it, there is a way to communicate it without insulting anyone. If you are just incapable, then that supports my conclusion about you Arthur. You are an uncivil person who doesn't belong in a public medium that depends on the civility of its community. Like I said before Arthur. I am the mature adult in the room. You can join me anytime now. Greg Bard (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am old enough to watch TV after 10 pm. You just don't want me to stay up because you are mean to me. X is even allowed to watch Y, and he is only 11. I am almost 13. If you are not prepared to behave like adults you shouldn't have children in the first place. Why don't you grow up and relax? Hans Adler 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong discussion. How could I mix this up? Hans Adler 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...consistent with what I was saying.Greg Bard (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problem with References
Most of the references in this article are not visible in the text, and only in the reflist at the bottom of the page. The ref tags are present in the article, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eball (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to work now.

Diagram
The diagram in File:Formal languages.png is unsourced in this copy (it's claimed to be sourced to Godel, Escher, Bach in other instances), is inappropriate in this article, and is not entirely accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "meaningless" intended to mean?
In trying to understand syntax from the perspective of logic, I've so far had difficulty in understanding the introductory definitions--particularly the following: "syntax is anything [...] without regard to any interpretation or meaning given to them" & "The symbols, [etc., ...] whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any."

In my current perspective, were "no regard to any interpretation or meaning" to be placed upon some otherwise cognized given, it would at minimum be a real possibility that the given would not be in any way cognized. Here using the letter/symbol A as example, it was intended to be used to convey meaning; this itself imparts "A" with some degree of meaning (which can be interpretable by those who so intended). To then analyze "A" without any interpretation or meaning (either regarding what was intended by it or, else, in reference to not oneself placing any meaning upon it) seems to me equivalent to not holding any comprehension that it is a symbol of any sort, instead ultimately viewing it as a random piece of meaningless information.

I'm either nitpicking or completely not grasping what "syntax" can potentially signify to experts within realms of formal logic. My guess is the former. If so, the phrasing could be changed to something along the lines of "the means (symbolic, propositional, etc.) by which meaning is, or can become, conveyed". (Not being studied in formal logic, though, I don't feel qualified to attempt such changes.) Nichesque (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Negation completeness
The definition of negation completeness says "for each formula A of the language of the system either A or ¬A is a theorem of S". I think that should be "for each closed formula A" or "for each sentence A". 31.52.253.220 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)