Talk:Semantics of logic

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 articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

sources

are sources really needed for a page that is mostly there to link to other pages? I think that the ones it links to should have sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.169.117 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

formal semantics

The term "formal semantics" also refers to one way of studying meaning in theoretical linguistics. joo-yoon (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Why was this article moved (about 15 months ago) from Semantics of Logic? When I look at the first 20 Google Scholar hits for "Formal Semantics", I get:

9 for semantics of programming languages, either in general, or for particular PLs
5 for modelling and specification languages (e.g., UML, which doesn't have a formal semantics...)
4 for linguistics
1 for semantics of logic, and
1 for semantic web

Should we move the page back? This page should be for formal semantics in linguistics, I think, where it has the clearest meaning. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, it was a long time ago and I am not sure about the circumstances. I am sure that you know what you are doing so you can arrange things anyway you want as far as I'm concerned. In that case, it seems to me that the article Semantics should have a section titled "Semantics of logic" with a "main" link to the full article which you are talking about and a short summary of such an article (consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration). Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

This article should logically serve as a dab, but it needs text, like a {{SIA}}. There is overlap in the approaches to FS in various fields: logic, tcs, linguistics, which justify more than a dab per WP:CONCEPTDAB. The main problem is that this article was written with little clarity with respect to both scope and details. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "tcs"? In any case, this article should be split; what was there before your edit should be in formal semantics (logic) (or formal semantics (mathematics), if the philosphical logicians object), formal semantics (computer science), the experimental formal semantics (natural language) (probably not "linguistics"), and possibly some other topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind splitting this article and replacing it with a dab. Because it had the linguistics sidebar, I assumed it was trying (but failing) to be an overview. There is overlap in formal semantics in the 3 fields, e.g. algebraic semantics is the same in both logic and tcs (= theoretical computer science), despite what the Wikipedia stub on that says, just applied to different formal languages. So, there is some basis for a common overview article here. However, there is probably little if any readership for such an overview, so it may be a waste of time to write. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Audi, Robert, ed. (1995). Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 275. ISBN 0-521-40224-7. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move again

I've requested the move back to Semantics of logic at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]