| Revision as of 14:44, 6 October 2008 editThinkBlue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers47,649 edits Caution: Editing tests on Jeremy Stangroom. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:15, 16 October 2008 edit undoGemtpm (talk | contribs)204 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ] (]) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == October 2008 == | |||
| ] Please refrain from making test edits in Misplaced Pages articles{{#if:Jeremy Stangroom|, such as those you made to ],}} even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be ] and have been ]. If you would like to experiment again, please use the ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-test2 --> --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> 14:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:15, 16 October 2008
Corresponding conditional merge into strict conditional
Hi, I have a few questions about your merge of corresponding conditional into strict conditional. What is the relationship between a corresponding conditional and a strict conditional? That is, why should they be in the same article? Are they both special types of a larger class of logical objects? Would it make more sense if corresponding conditional were merged into material conditional? --Beefyt (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Beefy. They should really ce grouped as 'conditionals' and then subdivided. There isa persistent confusion in WP between conditonals where the first part IMPLIES the second part, and conditionals where there is no such 'material implication'.