Talk:Antecedent (logic)

Unless

The definition in this article should probably be clarified since, I'm assuming, in the statement "A unless B", A is not called the antecedent even though it comes first, because logically, the statement is equivalent to "if not B then A". Thus A is actually the consequent. Right? - dcljr (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

True, referring to "first" and "second" is not a good definition (one also occasionally says "B if A"). Regarding unless, doesn't the statement mean "(not A) if and only if B"? AmirOnWiki (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbols

I can't figure out why the author of this paragraph (copied and pasted below) changed alphabets. If there is some meaning conveyed by switching from the Latin P and Q to the Greek φふぁい and ψぷさい, then that should be clarified. If not, I think it would be better to select one set of symbols and stick with it.

This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q. In an implication, if φふぁい implies ψぷさい then φふぁい is called the antecedent and ψぷさい is called the consequent.[1]

(HypatiaGrace (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC))

See also Talk "Ambiguous example" regarding the implication example. The change in alphabet makes sense with that example clarified.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Antecedent (logic)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Rated as stub == Short article without citations or references. Hotfeba 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-place text deleted

I have deleted "It is also known for a person's principles to a possible or hypothetical issue." from the first line. 86.132.216.74 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguous example

In the intro, this doesn't seem to make much sense:

In an implication, if $\phi$ implies $\psi$ then $\phi$ is called the antecedent and $\psi$ is called the consequent.

Is it supposed to mean:

In the implication "$\phi$ implies $\psi$", $\phi$ is called the antecedent ...

BMJ-pdx (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to make any sense of the original, so I have applied the change. If anyone can clarify the original, please reword it.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)