User:Gluo88/sandbox

test https://copyvios.toolforge.org/

draft - for Talk:Logic
Thanks for your inputs. you have good points on Modal logic treatments. My former proposal also intended that it outlines fundamental concepts like logical form and semantics before getting into specialist logical concepts, but not treated the classification of Modal logic well. Taking your inputs, I propose the revised version as below.

Thank you very much for your inputs. I see your good points on Modal logic treatments. My former proposal also intended "that it outlines fundamental concepts like logical form and semantics before getting into specialist logical concepts", but did not treat the classification of Modal logic well. Taking your inputs, I propose the revised version as below.

Chapter 1	Classification of logic

1.1 Approaches to logic   /* former chapter 1, Types of logic*/
 * 1) 	classical logic /* see SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) */
 * 2) 	non-classical logic /* not satisfying one of rules that are required by classical logic */
 * 3) 	Formal logic
 * 4) 	Informal logic  /* see SEP */
 * 5) 	Philosophical logic /* combined section of chapter 1 and chapter 4 */

1.2 Types? /* former chapter 4 type */


 * Mathematical logic /* Formal, classical, non-classical */
 * Syllogistic logic  /* Formal, classical */
 * Propositional logic /* Formal, classical */
 * Predicate logic    /* Formal, classical */
 * Computational logic /* Formal, classical */
 * Paraconsistent logic /* Formal, non-classical */
 * Modal logic
 * Aristotle' Modal logic  /* Informal, non-classical */
 * Modal logic (with Kripke semantics) /* Formal, non-classical */
 * Dialectics /* Informal, non-classical ? */

@User:Chalst Thank you very much for your explanation.


 * It looks that chapter 1 and 4 are both related to classification of logic. Should these two become two sub-sections of a chapter of "Classification of logics"?


 * For chapter 1, Mathematical logic looks to be a sub-area of Formal approach; and Philosophical logic could be Informal, Formal, Mathematical, but always non-classical, am I right?  Should there be some discussion on the relationship of the approaches in chapter 1, and the relationship to each logic type in the chapter 4?


 * It looks that Chapter 1 is currently a high level classification (using concept of approaches only, excluding using concept of the classical and non-classical). The classic logic and non-classical logic looks to a significant concept to distinguish special logic types, probably not less significant than Mathematical or non-Mathematical.  Should the concept of classic and non-classical be used in chapter 1 for high level classification too?

--Gluo88 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For chapter 4, Each Mathematical logic and Philosophical logic contain multiple sub-logic types, should we combine these Mathematical logic and Philosophical logic to chapter 1? Chapter 4 may list some special examples.  For example, paraconsistent logic belongs  to Non-classical logic, Formal logic (also Mathematical?),  Philosophical logic.