Talk:Scope (Logic)/Examples/Arbitrary Example 3

Reason for Edit During Active Revision

Sorry to make another edit when User:Prime.mover is busy trying to update the page, but I noticed that I gave an erroneous example when I added a scope for $ < $ in the table(both definitions refer to logical connectives and so the $ < $ wouldn't be covered by either). I hope this did not cause any confusion. Nekomusumeninaritai (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Examples of Alternative Definitions

User:Prime.mover has recently refactored this definition to be more consistent with others included on Definition:Scope (Logic), and it certainly is much tidier. However, examples for Definition:Scope (Logic)/Connective and Definition:Scope (Logic)/Quantifier were deleted in favor of the first definition on that page. But these definitions are different and currently no example on that page illustrates that. For example, the scope $\lor$ is $\exists x: \paren {x < y}$ and $y = 0$, but is $\exists x: \paren {x < y} \lor y = 0$ using \Definition:Scope (Logic)/Connective. Should a separate example page have been created under the namespace Definition:Scope (Logic)/Connectice to illustrate this definition, or was this just an unavoidable cut necessary to make this example legible?Nekomusumeninaritai (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

O'Connor and Powell give the definition as given on the page Definition:Scope (Logic), that is, the bits on either side of the connective. Basson and O'Connor defines the scope in the same way.

Borowski and Borwein define the scope as the whole thing including the connective. Lemmon the same. Suppes the same but he only talks about the scope of a quantifier.

Is it worth raising both definitions?

Honestly I find the distinction pointless. --prime mover (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from. No worries. I will take the time to craft it into a decent shape, now I understand what you mean. (I am afraid I dislike the Wikitable format, it looks like grey prison bars to me. I will dig out (or craft) an appropriate template so we can present the table looking good.) --prime mover (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Rename

User:Prime.mover has suggested this page be renamed by adding the appropriate template, and I agree. At the least, the title of the page should have consistent number (i.e. not have the phrase "a Nonzero Natural Numbers"). Additionally, rereading the Help:Page_Editing, I noticed Help:Page_Editing#Redundant words which discourages the use of the article a in page names. I am not aware of a way to make this correction myself as a normal user, or I would have already. I am also not sure if there are other issues with the name, but have no strong preference for any name that might be chosen. Nekomusumeninaritai (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I happen to have found the page Help:Renaming Pages. It confirms that a trusted user must be the one to rename the page.Nekomusumeninaritai (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The way it sits now is the style which has evolved over the years. While it is of course to a certain extent arbitrary, we believe that internal site-wide consistency is a fundamental feature of $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$. Hence this is the way we go with this sort of thing. --prime mover (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)