Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic/Archive 2

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Logic
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lambda calculus and friends
Over at WP:CS, I'm wondering what to do about various forms of the lambda calculus...please do drop by and chime in! --mgreenbe (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:21, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Categories
There have been a number of changes to Logic categories and articles put under newer categories and these have in some cases been controversial, and have been reverted to the prior status quo. This is a waste of good editing time. I propose that any changes to the logic categories are proposed first here and implementaion await support by say six editors. In particular if there is no response to a proposal this should NOT be taken as a vote in favour of the change.--Philogo (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that there are enough active editors watching this page to make this a good condition. I think a better procedure might be to propose a change here, and when there are no objections after a while to propose it at WP:CfD (if it's about renaming or deleting a category) and to advertise this on the talk pages of the philosophy and maths projects. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Philogo (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

picture
Is this picture appropriate for the article? If not, maybe someone can remove it. I defer to you. 207.241.239.80 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. Done, thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Notices and proposals
I've added a section to WikiProject Logic/To do to put notices about move/merge/AfD proposals; it seems to me like a good place to have such a thing. There are three notices there at the moment. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Logical synthesis
Hi,

There seems to be no article summarising the fundamentals of logical synthesis: using primitives to state axioms, from which reasoned argument leads to conclusions which may be significant enough to be regarded as theorems. I added a mini-overview to the Synthetic geometry article. Hope some of you can pick up on this point and do it justice. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Propositional logic or sentential logic?
We currently have an article Propositional logic and a category Category:Sentential logic. Since the two terms are exact synonyms, one of the two should be renamed and standard terminology used throughout the project. Otherwise some readers will confuse propositional logic and predicate logic because the words are similar. I suppose this would also have consequences for the naming of terms such as "propositional/sentential variable", although I could also imagine a compromise such as "propositional logic" with "sentential variable". (See WP:WikiProject Logic/Standards for notation for the current state of our standardisation efforts.)

tried to rename the category in March, but opposed this, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 28. The CfD was aborted, but the planned discussion elsewhere has not happened so far. Gregbard has now once more proposed renaming the category, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 25. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for "propositional logic"

 * More common in the literature, by at least a factor of 3. (See discussion here. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for "sentential logic"

 * It's the logic of sentences; there are philosophical problems with the definition/existence of "propositions". [But I am not sure I fully understand them.] --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Common abbreviations for propositional/sentential logic: PL, SL. Common abbreviations for first-order predicate logic: PL, FOL. To avoid the ambiguity of PL, we should use SL and FOL. This makes it natural to call it "sentential logic". --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I am notifying the Maths and Philosophy projects as well as (who created the category) and Philogo. I have no strong opinion either way, but I want consistency and stability. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed course of action, and favour consistent use of proposition over sentence: the usual modern interpretation of classical logic takes correspondence between sentences and truth conditions very much for granted, and there are plenty of bespoke logics for dealing with various objections to this usual interpretation, so the advantage of talking about sentential logic seems dubious.  However, I'm not convinced that the synonymy is exact even for the purposes of formal logic.
 * Exhibit 1: take a look at the discussion of term and proposition at term logic. I find the whole area unclear, since I get the idea that many key logicians seem to have felt that they had to reinterpret these words in order to be clear, but I think that the WP article is correct in asserting that the sentence involved in a syllogism is the whole syllogism, whilst the propositions involved are the premises and conclusion of the syllogisms.
 * Exhibit 2: what about second-order propositional logic, where one can quantify over propositions, but there are neither predicates nor quantifiers over individuals? Is that a sentential logic?
 * Proposition (philosophy) would be the place for a proper discussion of the idea of sentences vs. propositions as the basis for logic. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have only an extremely vague idea of what you are talking about. Understanding the article term logic seems to be more trouble for me than it's worth. E.g., didn't Aristotle talk about connectives at all? Or did he use only implicit conjunction for his syllogisms? In any case propositional logic is at a critical point between philosophy, mathematics, computer science and digital engineering, so the articles in about it all need compromising and dedicated sections for special aspects in individual fields.
 * I found a single reliable source using the term "second-order sentential logic" (and its variant "quantified sentential logic"). Everybody else seems to be using "propositional logic" in a second-order context. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey of literature on logic
This is skewed towards the mathematical side. Feel free to add additional sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Propositional"
 * 1) Bell, Machover
 * 2) Ben-Ari
 * 3) Chagrov, Zakharyaschev
 * 4) Chiswell, Hodges
 * 5) Church
 * 6) Cook
 * 7) Cori, Lascar
 * 8) Curry
 * 9) Ershov, Palyutin
 * 10) Halmos
 * 11) Hedman
 * 12) Hunter
 * 13) Kleene
 * 14) Kneebone
 * 15) Mendelson
 * 16) Nolt, Rohatyn, Varzi
 * 17) Rautenberg
 * 18) Rosenbloom
 * 19) Smullyan
 * 20) Whitehead, Russell
 * "Sentential"
 * 1) Allen, Hand
 * 2) Chang, Keisler
 * 3) Enderton
 * 4) Monk
 * 5) Hilbert, Ackermann
 * 6) Tarski
 * 7) Zegarelli

Rewrite of first-order logic
In case you haven't noticed, has been working to improve the article on first-order logic. Since FOL is a core logical concept that is of common interest to both philosophers and mathematicians, it would be good for someone to review the article and give a philosopher's perspective on CBM's work. Classicalecon (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please; any comments would be appreciated. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Catuṣkoṭi into tetralemma

 * Talk:Tetralemma

I think a merged article would be a Good Thing for the logic project as a whole, since in many ways this is could become a good introduction to the ideas behind the most interesting four-valued logic, and an article of interest to philosophically-, formally-, and historically-minded readers. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Valentina Harizanov" nominated for deletion
See Articles for deletion/Valentina Harizanov. Don't just vote Keep or Delete; give your arguments. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on Language of logic
Can you please have a look at Articles for deletion/Language of logic and give your opinion? Thanks, --Pgallert (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Substitution (logic)
I created this very brief logic stub, it is in need of some tender loving care. Substitution seems to have got rather short shrift from the logic pages so far. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal language (logic) on AFD
I have nominated Formal language (logic) for deletion. The discussion page is Articles for deletion/Formal language (logic). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

New can scheme proposed
User:Gregbard has proposed that Category:Systems of formal logic be merged with Category:Logical calculi, and he also created Category:Formal systems, which has been promptly taken to CfD by User:Arthur Rubin. Perhaps we could have a centralized discussion here about these issues rather than the merry-go-round in various delete/merge/whatever administrative pages? I think that a discussion determning the scope of formal system should take place first. See Talk:formal system. Pcap ping  03:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Logical implication and related articles in need for attention
In December 2008, the article Logical implication was redirected to Entailment. I have now undone the redirect since (1) the term "logical implication" is an often used term which may indicate any of logical consequence, model-theoretic entailment, or the material conditional, depending on context; (2) the Entailment and Material conditional pages are in rather poor shape at the moment. I'm aware that the issues here are rather complex, since, e.g. some non-classical logics have no equivalent for the deduction theorem. Any further comments are appreciated. --Classicalecon (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on Argument from fallacy
Can you please have a look at Articles for deletion/Argument from fallacy and give your opinion? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

new books
The blog http://logicmatters.blogspot.com/ has a couple of posts starting on October 19 about this new book, which may be of interest to logic editors:



Also, there is a new edition of

which is cited in several wikipedia articles. The new edition is ISBN 978-3540693185 and is titled "Proof Theory: The First Step into Impredicativity". There is a Google Books preview that looks pretty good.

69.228.171.150 (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Philosophy/Logic to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Philosophy/Logic/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

False (logic), Boolean domain and Truth value
There is a page “False (logic)”, but there is no article. It is disputable, to what existing article (see history of), but it’s quite evident that we have not a redirection target good enough.

Which articles and which redirects we should have? Of course, there is such (quite fuzzy) general notion as truth value (is “propositional value” a synonym?), and the “boolean domain” is one of its implementations. IMHO it’s incorrect to state that boolean domain “resembles Sierpiński space”, because the latter is not symmetric and is related to Heyting algebras and intuitionism, but the former is symmetric. Sierpiński space (and intuitionistic/constructivist/computational feeling of a truth value, that is IMHO almost the same thing) is another implementation of a “truth value”, among many others.

But what he have to do with False (logic)? Is it an element of Boolean domain or a generally accepted truth value? Or it is merely a negation of the truth? Or the same thing (as a statement) as contradiction? Perhaps, a separate article on this topic (not disambig page as false) is needed.

Please, excuse my ignorance of precise terms in this domain, because the language in which I learned mathematical logics was not English. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I think Boolean domain and truth value need to be merged, and false (logic) should redirect to the merged article. It makes no sense to discuss these topics separately; we are writing an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Hans Adler 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Perception
Dear all,

I’ve been trying to help folks who were trying to articulate the latest knowledge on Perception article, but my suggestions did not help much. On top of that, some little egos managed to erode even that little clarity we had.

I have decided, therefore, to simply rewrite the article on the basis of currently available knowledge in the following disciplines: cognitive and developmental psychology, medicine (especially genetics), philosophy and complex (adaptive) systems theory with emphasised references to non-monotonic logics. I am contemplating few other disciplines, but these will suffice for the beginning.

I have drafted the lead into the article and the draft can be found on the related discussion page. I am calling now for comments and contributions backed by the latest science and the latest contemporary philosophical thought. My only condition is clarity and brevity wherever possible. If you find other possible references, they will be welcomed too.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  00:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nihilist paradox
The article nihilist paradox is currently in great need of attention. I would especially like to change its name, which is currently ambiguous, to something closer to "skepticism paradox", but I would first like to seek the opinions of those who know more on the subject than I, and to hopefully garner some interest in the article so that verifiable information can be added. I wasn't sure whether this more closely applied to epistemology or logic so I will be posting it on both discussion pages; I hope this is not poor etiquette and I apologize if it is.

-- ✶♏✶ 13:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophic burden of proof
The page on philosophic burden of proof claims that "ontologically positive" claims have a heavier burden of proof than their negations. I've often heard such claims in casual conversations, but I've never seen the claim defended in philosophical publications. Are there any citations for this claim of asymmetry? If so, perhaps someone could add a few references. If not, perhaps we should discuss how the article can be changed.

I posted this same message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, but this is, I think, an issue of critical thinking and so perhaps not out of place here.

Thanks for your help. Phiwum (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Logic work group articles
Category:Logic work group articles,, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bit pattern images
Lipedia is active again. The images seem to be slightly less eccentric this time, but I think they still make the articles worse. Unfortunately I don't have time to deal with this. Hans Adler 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The file on the right shows the bit patterns of all conjunctions of up to four arguments. One could think, it's interesting, that the result is a Sierpinski triangle. The same for the exclusive or gives a binary Hadamard matrix. One could think, that's interesting as well.

What I like about the matrices is, that the show the output for no argument in context with the others: The conjunction of no argument is the tautology, and the disjunction of no argument is the contradiction. In words this sounds odd, in the matrices it looks evident.

Possibly the files shouldn't be the introducing images.

This work by M. Cook contains some matrices of this kind.

Lipedia (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in the three-operand Venn diagrams: those operators are binary operators, not ternary ones. You won't find a diagram for "a+b+c" on Addition, nor one for "a*b*c" on Multiplication. The reason for this is simple, they don't help in understanding the subject.
 * As for the matrices: they don't belong in the articles for the operators (plus, they are confusing). If anything, they would fit in Sierpinski triangle. However, since your diagrams are controversial, you should ask on the respective talk page before adding them. – Adrianwn (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles like Conjunction are about conjunctions - not only about conjunctions of two statements. (As well as the article Intersection is not only about the intersection of two sets.) But of course the case for two arguments is the most important one.

If these articles were about binary operations only, the following sentence from Conjunctive normal form would be wrong:
 * In Boolean logic, a formula is in conjunctive normal form
 * if it is a conjunction of clauses, where a clause is a disjunction of literals,
 * where a literal and its complement cannot appear in the same clause.

Sierpinski triangles and Hadamard matrices appear at different places in mathematics, and connections between different topics are important. So if these structures appear in logic, we should have some space to show them.

Meanwhile I removed the matrices from most articles. In smaller size I kept them in the Truth table sections in AND, OR and XOR.

Lipedia (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Logic articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Logic articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fallacies
Do we have an expert on logical fallacies here? Certain things mentioned in some of the articles seem rather questionable. Specifically Tu quoque, though there are others. I'm not sure how you can have a legitimate use of a logical fallacy when that goes against the very definition of a logical fallacy. --Calibas (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplication of content and general confusion
Please see Talk:Entailment. - dcljr (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Task List
The Task List is not being actively updated, but there are many articles in need of attention. Actively updating the task list would help by directing the attention of editors to articles encouraging co-ordination. Philogo (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss the Task List
 * Update the Task List

All men are donkeys or men and donkeys are donkeys
This is at Did you know, the nomination is at All men are donkeys or men and donkeys are donkeys. I am not 100% satisfied by the way the article is written: To present this as if it is a current problem that needs solving. Anyone to improve the article, or to offer an opinion at DYK? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you detail your concerns on the talk page of All men are donkeys or men and donkeys are donkeys&mdash; Philogos (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, see here --Pgallert (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Two envelopes problem - logicians needed
The two envelopes problem is usually seen as a paradox in probability or in mathematical economics. However there is also a version "without probability" due to the logician Smullyan. Maybe some folks in the logic project have interest in this article. There are a number of competing "solutions" to Smullyan's paradox by logicians/philosophers, generally using ideas from the theory of counterfactual reasoning, and all of them very technical. It is very difficult for a non-expert to give succinct summaries.

The situation: you pick one of two closed envelopes, one of which contains twice the amount of money in it as the other, and both amounts are greater than zero. Smullyan pointed out that you can say both:


 * 1) By switching, I gain or lose the difference in the amounts in the two envelopes, thus whether I gain or lose, I gain or lose the same amount.


 * 1) By switching, I either gain an amount equal to what's in my envelope or I lose half of what's in it; these amounts are different.

How can the amount I gain if I gain both be equal, and be not equal, to the amount I lose if I lose?

Actually, to my (scientist's) mind the paradox merely exposes the inadequacy of common language: write out a mathematical description of the situation and the paradox vanishes. Moreover I think that Smullyan's *problem* is not actually probability-free (though his analysis is). In the beginning of the problem we are told that we pick one of two closed envelopes. The symmetry of this situation and the arbitrariness of our choice is an ingredient which many would formalize using subjectivist probability. This ingredient tells us that we are perfectly indifferent to swapping our envelope (closed) for the other. Neither of Smullyan's two arguments bring this crypto-probability ingredient into play. Their apparent contradiction shows, to my mind, the meaninglessness of the comparison between what you would win if you would win with what you would lose if you would lose. A statement which is meaningless has a meaningless negation and no contradiction results by arriving at both. Is it worth while to pick apart the argument and say where exactly it goes wrong? Richard Gill (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Schyler/List of Syllogisms
Just thought I'd let the community know of what I am doing. Please help if you can. Schyler ( one language ) 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change a section title
There's a proposal to adjust one of the main section titles used in "Wikipedia's contents", which will affect the order in which the section titles are presented. See Portal talk:Contents. The Transhumanist 02:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Principle of explosion and my RfC
My Request for Comment now has a discussion of whether I am wrong to assert that at most one of two contradictory statements can be correct. My statement of this consequence of the principle of explosion is misquoted and judged to be incompatible with WP policy.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly in real life it rarely turns out that two apparently contradictory statements are in fact contradictory. It is amazing the amount of spin people can put onto what appears to a neutral observer to be a clear cut fact. Be interested to see a further theoretical discussion, but I think if this focuses on the RfC, participants risk causing problems for KW (see ) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving just a little background, I understood the comment to not be about the theoretical issue, but about what should be the contents of Wikipedia articles or the outcome of discussions at Wikipedia . As Wikipedia articles do not seek to establish the truth but just to state fairly the status of the topic, in proportion to all non-splinter current opinions, it certainly does not apply to what we do here.  In the context of the particular rfc, it was a side issue, but not totally unrelated to being the possible basis behind an overly argumentative approach. With regard to the general proposition in the abstract, it only applies to properly posed questions or propositions. Most discussions in real life are not of that nature. Whether any proposition can be truly such in the real world, as distinct from a subset of the real world abstracted for the purpose of discussion, is an interesting question & I do not think one to which there is any general agreement. I decided long ago in college I would not pursue such issues, because I prefer to discuss matters which need a practical conclusion of some sort in order for humans to take action. I see no reason to change my mind, but those who want to discuss it are certainly welcome to do so. I agree with Elen that it should be pursued without connection to the current rfc.   DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear logicians.
 * I request assistance.
 * RE the apologia of Elen and DGG: On the contrary, the RfC concerns i.a. my correction of many falsehoods in the Socialist Party of America article, where biased falsehoods had been introduced e.g. by using a 4-page "history" published by the contemporary Socialist Party USA. One falsehood asserted that event A preceded event B, while reliable sources assert that event B preceded event A. The event was the exiting of Michael Harrington (A) and the SDUSA-majority having control (B).
 * These statements do not involve the uncertainty principle or the failure of bivalence in game-theoretic semantics or Topos theory.
 * Their assertions about "the real world" would have greater authority if Elen and DGG had ever bothered to contribute to the articles in questions, before lecturing me about irrelevancies. In DGG's case, his investing all of 11 minutes in reading the 103-kilobyte RfC (and writing his self-congratulatory sermon) and his logical fluency are responsible for the quality of his contributions. Would that his decision "not to pursue such issues" had induced due humility and caution here or in his writings at RfC.
 * Elen neglected to quote her being threatened with a block, I add "for context". For more context, please see the discussion of administrators' treatment of article writers, and concern for civility over content, on the talk pages of User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and of User talk:SandyGeorgia.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz, please stop repeating the personal attack on DGG. He has already stated that he had been reading the bloody RfC for several days before he decided to comment.  The time between his previous post and his post at the RfC is therefore irrelevant, and your continued assertion is nothing but a smear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Space for apology by Elen (reserved by Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC))


 * Elen,
 * On the contrary, you misread him. DGG has already stated that AFTER HIS INITIAL CONTRIBUTIONS he has read the RfC as it progresses. (He acknowledged that he had written much of his "outside view" before viewing the RfC, also. 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Honestly, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you have a serious problem with following a threaded conversation in the English language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC) And that second diff that you added AFTER I had responded to you (and how many times now have you been asked not to refactor your posts after people have responded), just illustrates the problem even more. I don't believe you can even make an attempt at understanding what most people say to you in conversational English. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The second diff was made with a time stamp, showing the 3 minute gap between your response and mine. Please stop speculating about my intentions. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where have I speculated about your intentions in my post relating to you refactoring your post? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * " I don't believe you can even make an attempt at understanding what most people say to you in conversational English." Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Space for apology by Elen of the Roads (reserved by Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC))
 * I will see you at ANI tomorrow. Your behaviour is absolutely deplorable, your attitude to other editors stinks, your ability to reflect is zero, and you are not, in my opinion, a net asset to this project no matter how erudite your content additions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Elen,
 * Your behavior to me stinks. You have left falsehoods here, which you still haven't had the decency to correct. Huff and puff all you want! Your
 * sneers about my abilities and
 * attitudes, and
 * irrelevant statement about my content additions (one of dozens, which should be irrelevent outside of Jante)
 * do not help this RfC or set a good example.
 * I have tried to set an example of admitting faults as long as I have been a part of this project, as anybody can see. I do not deserve your sneers.
 * More importantly, you do not deserve to be giving sneers---you are much better than this. I am sorry that I made you angry, but you should retract the errors, please.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * yes, one section of what I wrote contained some phrasing I've used repeatedly, as it repeatedly applies. Abruptness to new users is a common problem. Each time I need to comment on it, I read the specific context to adapt what I have to say, not think it through from the beginning. And both of you are correct about the sequence: I made some initial comments, checked it from day to day, but then added additional comments after I saw something there I felt I strongly disagreed with--and after that checked more frequently.   DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG,
 * That is a non-denial non-denial. Why don't you just admit that you cut and pasted your essay after reading the RfC for 6 minutes?
 * Since you accused me, I demand an answer: Where was I ever rude to a new user?
 * Answer here and at the RfC, if you have any concern for correcting your slothful falsehoods. I have asked you for days, and it is time for you to act like a man and take responsibility.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rules of Inference
Hello all. I am not a very active editor, but I saw that Template:Rules_of_inference was missing two important rules (existential generalization and existential instantiation). They are briefly discussed in Existential quantification, but I think that the way the template is organized is very messy. I created a page for existential generalization, but I held off on creating existential instantiation because I did not think it would be prudent to create another stub. Perhaps all four rules of inference can be merged into a new page? Let me know your thoughts on this. Yarou (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A problem with Conditional statement (logic)
Articles about (mathematical) logic in en.WP were always characterized by a chaotic pattern of naming and redirecting. Previous time I notified this wikiproject about an unsatisfactory state of false (logic) – nothing was made since. In last two years the problem became even worse, as you can see at Conditional statement’s AfD. As user: CBM suggested, I try to make a list of articles, redirects and dab pages, belonging to the "conditional/⇒/implication/→" topic: Will anybody suggest some improvement? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Material conditional, alias: material implication
 * Truth-functional conditional – redirects to "material conditional"
 * Logical conditional – currently redirects to "material conditional"
 * Modus ponens – notably uses "logical conditional" as an alias of "material conditional"
 * Implies operator – currently redirects to "material conditional"
 * Entailment (an article with numerous aliases and duplicate de:-interwiki)
 * de:Konsequenz  = logical consequence – redirects to "entailment"
 * Logical implication – currently redirects to "entailment", note the target is different from "logical conditional"
 * de:Implikation – currently interwikis to the implication dab page, which is an obvious error and has no be changed to "logical implication"
 * Semantic consequence, Syntactic consequence, Proof-theoretic consequence, Model-theoretic consequence, Consequence relation – all five currently redirect to "entailment"
 * Strict conditional – a conditional in the sense closer to modal logic
 * Logical biconditional – of course it is another propositional operator, but the article asserts that it is the same as "material biconditional"
 * Conditional statement (logic) – an article currently under AfD, which I propose to move (drop the disambiguation) and make an outline article
 * Conditional statement – currently a dab page, see my comments at Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic)
 * Conditional (programming) – conditionals from programming languages
 * Indicative conditional – another variety of conditional, from natural languages

Serious problems with entailment
It appears that the lead example involving John, being a bachelor, and being a man, is actually an example not of logical inconsequence as written, but of tautological inconsequence. That is, if Γ = {“John is a bachelor”}, S1 = “John is a bachelor” and S2 = “John is a man,” then S2 is not a tautological consequence of Γ. S2 is still, however, a logical consequence of Γ. And this is only the beginning of the article. It appears there is severe confusion between the concepts of logical consequence (which currently redirects to entailment) and tautological consequence. This article needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Hanlon1755 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please centralize discussion at Talk:Entailment — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Probabilistic CTL
Would this page be in your domain? I can't make heads or tails of it. --Fang Aili talk 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That page is based on a broken link to a preprint. I would guess that it should be deleted (returned to user space). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * CiteSeer changed its URL scheme. There seem to be quite a few papers on PCTL independent of the original authors so it's probably notable. The article definitely needs some work, though. —Ruud 12:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Vivid Designator
Hello, I am new here and I am looking for some help with the first page I created. I think I did good, but it is really tiny, so maybe some of you know something more about it, or can help me out in some other way. The page is vivid designator, as you may have guessed. Thanks all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Singh Long (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mizar system external links discussion
Members of the Logic task force are cordially invited to chime-in in the on-going discussion of the pro and con of placing Mizar system external deep links on mathematical articles. Yaniv256 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

The Monty Hall problem is an especially interesting one because it touches upon logic, probability, and psychology; why do so many engineers, scientists and mathematicians get it wrong at first? The question the RfC asks concerns the place conditional probability should have in the Monty Hall problem article. We could really use some informed opinions on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Apex fallacy
This article is nominated for deletion and there are claims it does not qualify as a logical fallacy. I am wondering if someone who is more familiar with what is and is not logical fallacy (like the definition of it, and if this concept applies or not) could clarify whether or not it is.

I am wondering if this might be an incarnation of an existing fallacy? In which case I could see moving to change it to a redirect to an existing page rather than having its own article. I just know too little about the breadth of different logical fallacies and their categories to recognize whether or not this is covered by an existing kind we have a page about. Ranze (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Introduction to Logic and getting involved in WikiProject Logic?
I have a friend, Swim, who is reasonably well-educated at the university level and intellectually switched-on, but no longer engaged in any formal courses of study and working in a non-thinking man's field. Swim edits Wikipedia in their spare time for fun and to stay mentally sharp, and is interested in getting involved in something like WikiProject Logic. However, Swim never took a class in logic or otherwise studied it beyond a basic intro to philosophy-type class as an undergraduate. Swim sees WikiProject Logic as a wonderful potential source of learning and knowledge, and would like to be able to contribute to the success of the project (and not just take from it by osmosis), but is thinking first to read at least one intro-to-Logic-type book (since a lot of Swim's time for reading unfortunately doesn't correspond to time when they can access the Internet). Is there a specific intro-to-logic book (mass-market or otherwise) that you seasoned veterans and experience project-members would recommend? Swim would really, really appreciate help cutting through the clutter and getting sorted with his reading on this topic before joining the WikiProject Logic. Thanks on behalf of Swim... Azx2 21:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's always my late mother's book, . I admit to having a financial interest in sales of the book....  I cannot recommend a philosophy-type book, and I'd like to see one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Logic
Are there any objections for putting this up for deletion at MfD? It doesn't seem to be being used. Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Exception paradox
this came up at WP:FT/N and on researching it I see notability problems. The only real work I can find is a series of three books by one Nicholas Rescher, and while one of them was published by U. Pittsburgh Press I find no other literature references to something by this name. If someone could suggest some other resolution to this besides deletion I would appreciate it; I understand the ideas but am not familiar enough with the field to be able to guess at a different name, for example. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixing the Logic article
I've come out of my self-imposed Wikipedia semi-retirement, in part because I think the world deserves a better main article on logic, a top-100 article that has many serious flaws and that has been getting worse since 2010.

I'd be grateful if members of this Wikiproject could help make a list of issues with the current version of the article. I shall start a topic on Talk:Logic. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Technical on Sense and reference
I'd be grateful if we could all take a look at this article and see what changes, if any, need to be made to justify removing the tag. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict at Reductio ad absurdum
There is an edit conflict over whether the sentence "Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos" is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Outside opinions are needed. Please stop by at Removal of example from introduction. Thanks -- Chetvorno TALK 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No article on cogency
We need an article or at least section on the concept, in logic, philosophy, and law, of cogency, and how it is distinct from related concepts. The DAB page at Cogent should be moved to Cogent (disambiguation) and the bare word redirected to Cogency when we have an article there (or redirected to the same place that one goes, if we have a section on cogency in another article). For the time being, I redirected Cogency, which was a redlink, to Logical reasoning which addresses it is little bit, but is a stub that badly needs work. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

axiomatic theory, mathematical theory, axiomatic system
Hi, I don't really know the history but I noticed a potential inter(and intra)wiki mess. In french it seems that théorie axiomatique refers to the axioms that define a theory with all their consequences, whereas in en "axiomatic system" - axiomatic theory redirects to this - the set of all consequences is named mathematical theory which is an article about subfield of maths and has no word about axiomatic theories.

As the definition is not sourced all this needs discussion. Anybody up to this here ? TomT0m (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is at theory (mathematical logic). --Trovatore (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip ! Next question then : should not axiomatic theory redirect to this latter article than to the former ? This is important because on ptwiki - I don't know the language but required for a call for merger between their axiomatic theory to their axiomatic system article to be able to merge https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Interwiki_conflicts/Unresolved/2016#th.C3.A9orie_axiomatique_.28Q9295456.29.2Fth.C3.A9orie_axiomatique_.28Q792542.29 which I'm beginning to think is incorrect and the only opinion is related to this redirect : https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Fus%C3%A3o/Central_de_fus%C3%B5es/Sistema_axiom%C3%A1tico;_Teoria_axiom%C3%A1tica TomT0m (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Call for participation
I think it would be really good if we could tackle this; it is likely to rekindle interest in the WPP. I definitely do not have the time to do all of this by myself now, and wonder if I ever will. If anyone interested in this, either supporting/opposing the idea or offering their time, I'd love to hear from you. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Postscript I should point out that the technical part of the conversion has basically been done by the WPP Proposals team. What is needed is people with content knowledge to add to the resources the portal needs. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy/Logic articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Philosophy/Logic articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Fallacy article problems
There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy that may interest members of this WikiProject. –– FormalDude  talk  23:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Truthiness
I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia
A request for comment has been made at that may interest members of this project. –– FormalDude  talk  12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)