Definition talk:Formal System

I'm not sure about the recent removal of Definition:Axiomatic System. Granted it can be covered by the concept of "formal system", but there's a long leap from the definition as given here and the concept of a field of endeavour derived from a set of axioms. There is no talk on this page of "axioms" as such. So when an explorer of ProofWiki happens on the term "axiomatic" they are not going to be able to get a view of what an axiomatic system actually is. --prime mover (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's true. But it is not as if the explorer was going to find the definition they were looking for in the previous state of the page (which in the literature almost exclusively refers to first- or higher-order logic, or perhaps is couched in set theory as an algebraic structure).


 * I disagree -- it may have needed making a little more formal, but as an entry-level definition for someone new to the field, I think it had some merit. --prime mover (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But perhaps, while I am rebuilding logic from scratch (with which I am thankfully finally making measurable progress), Definition:Proof System is a more sensible target for redirection? &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur. It's better than just removing the links to the old page, which I think was a backwards step. --prime mover (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're most likely right. For the past few weeks, I have been submerged in trying to formulate the whole formal system/proof system/formal semantics business as general and precise as possible. This may have negatively affected my judgement in this case. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)