Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formal language (logic)

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Religion and philosophy

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Formal language (logic)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created as a POV fork of Formal language, after discussion at Talk:Formal_language did not support the creator's opinions about article content. I asked about this being a POV fork at User_talk:Gregbard#Formal_language_(logic) before nominating.

This is a POV fork because:

There are no sources that say that formal languages "in logic" are any different than formal languages in computer science and mathematics. The sources from mathematics listed in the article are actually from mathematical logic.

Nor is there sufficient agreed-upon material in the formal language article itself to warrant a split because of length.

Per WP:POV fork,

"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."

— Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete misunderstanding of what a POV fork is' -- If for instance the claim was that the article is written from a logicist, or diatheistic POV, that would be a legitimate claim. However, Arthur, CBM, and many others in the math department have repeatedly complained about a "pro-philosophy" or ""philosophical logic" POV. PLEASE LET ME CORRECT THIS. There is no such thing as a "pro-philosophy" POV. Just covering the philosophical content, is not itself POV (obviously this would be insane, since all articles under WP:PHILO's scope would be POV). One of the outcomes of this nomination should be to bring an end to the spurious claims of "POV". It really is a fundamental misunderstanding that acts as a big smokescreen to confuse the issue. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The "split" (not fork) is necessary, due to the repeated deletion of material along stark interdisciplinary lines. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, without merge, to the parent article). The "theory" sections are not part of "formal language" as used in logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question I've read this article carefully, and I don't see how the (more vague) definition given in it differs from that at formal language. Furthermore, most applications listed are the same in both articles. I saw on Talk:formal language that there was some disagreement over the inclusion of the image that's shown in this article, because "well-formed formulas" and theorems are not commonly define for formal languages outside Logic; as far as I can tell that image could be placed in a section at formal language instead of placing it at the top of the article. Is there anything else that beckons for a separate article? Pcap ping 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the definition given in formal language (logic) is more precise not more vague, it is, however more general and therefore more useful for describing logic, math and computers at the same time. It seems that you agree with me that the content having to do with formal languages as used in logic should never have been repeatedly deleted from the original article. There are many statements of truth made in the (logic) article which had been deleted from the original. It is not acceptable. Perhaps there could be a merge (a good complete merge), which I would support. However, I believe it will continue to be a mess which can be avoided by splitting. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of a language that meets the definition of formal language (logic), but not that of formal language? Pcap ping 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge There really should only be one article, but it should contain some of the content from the forked article. I would be opposed to deleting without covering this material. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of thing can be argued on the talk page. The information in the fork is covered elsewhere, as appropriate for the topics there. The reason that the fork is inappropriate is exactly that it was created because the author was unable to convince anyone else (via citations, sound arguments, or other means) that the material actually belongs in an article on formal languages, rather than articles on formal systems, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair characterization. Hunter's Metalogic is a reliable source. Even Arthur agrees that it is reliable, but just thinks it belongs on the other side of the street. However when one tries to move to the other side of the street it isn't allowed. This is plain wrong. You can't have it both ways. Cover the material about formal languages, including the fact that a formal language is an idea, that the marks on the page are a token of the idea, etcetera. Otherwise there is no right to complain. I am pretty sure I have determined that none of you guys cares that a formal language is an "idea," (and other facts) so you should be quite grateful to make the split. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter wrote a book on ~~philosophical logic~~ metalogic addressed to non-mathematicians; see the preface fo his book (edited: 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)). With that audience in mind, he was less formal. That does not make his idea of a formal language different. Please see page 4 in his book. He clearly refers to an alphabet just like formal language does. You still haven't replied to my question above... Pcap ping 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with me that the idea is not different, and that there should be one comprehensive article. However, the group is not willing to allow a comprehensive article. Hunter's language is more precise on most of the terms being used, and when it is not he says so specifically (see effective method). This actually is the appropriate text to use for clear, precise language, so I have to object to the characterization. Analytic philosophers, and philosophical logicians set out to identify the clearest language as the fundamental job they do. You absolutely should be using Hunter's language over language used in a math text which is more informal (in the sense used in the above paragraph.) I'm sorry, but that is the academic and intellectual reality. It is the proper role of logicians to be telling mathematicians about the fundamentals. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate article because you can't get to a consensus on the presentation of the same concept is treading WP:POINT. Immediately changing dozens of links with WP:AWB to point to your favorite presentation is also WP:DISRUPTION. Pcap ping 03:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a POV fork per se but it certainly is a useless fork. It's the same content with a somewhat different take on the whole thing. But I've read it carefully (I am competent to do so if anyone cares) and it's quite simply redundant. One can write formula instead of word but it's still a finite sequence of symbols (or should I say finite sequence of letters?) The article is also poorly written and unnecessarily confusing. The second and third sentences seem particularly devoid of meaning. Simply saying "a formal language is a set of strings" would carry the same precise idea. Pichpich (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the problem here is that very often the distinctions that philosophers make appear to be "devoid of meaning", especially in logic, and including when they are actually quite insightful. ("An object is the same as itself") I have a particular interest in preserving the 2nd and third sentences (which are ones which had been deleted from formal language). These are statements which tell us something fundamental about formal languages, and if you do not care to address them, then a split is justified. If you just take the attitude that you don't care then you will never see a need to split the article. I don't care if you care, but do not remove content that others care about (as has been demonstrated by its presence in a reliable text on the subject). With respect, your criticism amounts to a subjective opinion. And no, it is not precisely the same as you have characterized. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep is it notable? yes. is it substantive different? yes. is it better than the article it split from? clearly yes. the original article should be deleted, this one should be kept if there is a choice between the two, otherwise, both should exist. --Buridan (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The voice of reason as usual. Thank goodness for you. Be well.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough pandering to WP:RANDYs who cannot even explain how the notions differ but invoke WP:NPOV. I will strike this and change my vote if you can answer my question about the differences between these notions I asked above. Pcap ping 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]