Talk:Structural rule

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

resolution

I have updated the resolution link to Resolution (logic). feel free to change it if you know a better place to redirect the link to. STHayden ^{[ Talk ]} 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple-language section needed

This article, like many mathematics articles, is written in a language that is entirely inaccessible to non-mathematicians. The subject matter, however, appears simple and could be made clear to the novice through simple, concrete examples of each rule. The article badly needs a general-audience section in simple language, placed before the formal-logic formulation. -- 169.230.94.21 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mistake in weakening?

I'm pretty sure (but pretty tired, so i didn't just change the article) that the second version of weakening should not be

${\frac {\Gamma \vdash \Sigma }{\Gamma \vdash A,\Sigma }}$

but

${\frac {\Gamma \vdash A,\Sigma }{\Gamma \vdash \Sigma }}$

80.109.45.190 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree (and I'm not tired at the moment), so I fixed it.~~ Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and then I unfixed it. The right side of a sequent should be understood as a disjunction, so

\Gamma \vdash A,\Sigma

is weaker than

\Gamma \vdash \Sigma

. Pi zero (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm, the correct rule is ${\frac {\Gamma \vdash \Sigma }{\Gamma \vdash A,\Sigma }}$

The justification is—as observed—that $P\vee Q$ is weaker than $P$ , and that a sequent $\Gamma \vdash \Sigma$ can be read as "Assuming the conjunction of $\Gamma$ , we can show the disjunction of $\Sigma$ ".

For reference, see The Open Logic Text, Complete Version, §9.3 ^[1] 2001:8003:232E:CD01:3F:C4E8:D8AB:41AD (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Open Logic Project (2021). The Open Logic Text, Complete Version. Open Logic Project.

[1] Open Logic Project (2021). The Open Logic Text, Complete Version. Open Logic Project.

[1]