Talk:Laws of classical logic

absorption

Absorption appears invalid to me. User:Ray Van De Walker

You're right, I fixed it.

On my web browser (IE 6.X) the operator symbols all look the same -- like rectangular boxes. Aren't there Wiki-standard symbols for these? Grizzly

The HTML metacharacters are used there. They seem to be the best choice as if your default font has the character, it will be displayed. I don't know what would keep it from being displayed properly on your browser. --asilvahalo

Problems with this page: 1) tables! aaaaarg! 2) the link lead to pages on mathematics: try Idempotent or Associative. -- Tarquin 18:08 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

Annihilation leads to a page about the collision of matter and anti-matter, but I still don't know what it entails. -- Egregius

Delete?

This article seems to be confused about the distinction between the propositional constants T and F, and the truth values 'veritas' and 'falsum'. The former are articles of syntax; the latter are artefacts of the interpretation. Likewise bivalence is not a relationship between formulae in the way that De Morgan's laws are, but is instead a property of interpretations of the theory.

I don't like this article: it presents an equational theory of classical propositional logic, which is a particular formulation of a particular logic that is well treated in many other Wikipedia articles, seems mostly already included in Boolean logic, and doesn't provide a references for its treatment. Does it benefit Wikipedia to have this article at all? To my mind, the classical logic article starts with a list of principles that would better deserve the title laws of classical logic. I propose deleting the article, and pointing its referrers, none of which seem particularly relevant to the content here, to Boolean logic. Any objections to me starting the AfD? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly redundant, but a 0-merge might be better since the content is actually present elsewhere and AfD is unpredictable with such things. Judging from the incoming links, Boolean logic or Boolean algebra (introduction) might be good merge targets. Better the latter, since the former is in a disastrous state that is being vigorously defended by its owner. (Which is why we have so many Boolean algebra articles – each time Vaughan Pratt tried to clean up this mess of set theory and search engine cruft, StuRat came back after a while and resurrected his nonsense.) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There are a few redirects outside the article space [1] which are now broken, and I haven't checked all of the redirects to here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]