Talk:Conditional logic

Thanks to Thiagovscoelho for creating this. It is about time Wikipedia had an article on the logic of conditionals. I can add some more material in due course. The subject matter is extensive: do folks have an idea of how long and how detailed it is worth making this article? Dezaxa (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Dezaxa: I think the amount of detail in the current version (after recent revisions) is sufficient, so the main editing task now would be doing however much review warrants removal or replacement of the maintenance template (the adding of which I have disputed here). Thiagovscoelho (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Another user has raised the concern that this article might contain inadequately-reviewed text created with an LLM like ChatGPT. I was requested to help check for issues, but I am finding that many things in this article are impossible to verify as the citations just point to books on the subject with no page numbers. For example, this quote Around the same time, David Lewis developed an alternative but closely related "variably strict" account using comparative similarity orderings over possible worlds, culminating in his monograph Counterfactuals and a hierarchy of systems (V, VW, VC) for counterfactual conditionals. is cited to Lewis, David (1973). Counterfactuals. Blackwell. I have access to that book, but I don't have time to read the entire thing looking for the part that describes this hierarchy of systems or that would provide context for the accompanying image. @User:Thiagovscoelho can you please provide the page numbers in that book from which you created this image and wrote the above sentence? -- LWG ^talk 15:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, well, I thought that sentence was based on the book "generally", since I take the whole book to be about those logics. But if you're curious about the image, that's on page 131 of the book. When I was drawing it, though, I based it more on the image in Counterfactuals and Comparative Possibility, page 28 of volume 2 of Lewis's Philosophical Papers. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The diagram is much more readable in view of the axioms it is based on. The systems are just different (nonredundant) combinations of these axioms, where the letter V is just a placeholder and does not signify an axiom.

 N □しろいしかく⊤
 T □しろいしかくA ⊃ A
 W AB ⊃ ◇A & A ≼ B
 C AB ⊃ A < B
 L (no further axiom, or some tautology)
 S A □しろいしかく→ C ∨ A □しろいしかく→ ¬C
 U □しろいしかくA ⊃ □しろいしかく□しろいしかくA and ◇A ⊃ □しろいしかく◇A
 A A ≼ B ⊃ □しろいしかく(A ≼ B) and A < B ⊃ □しろいしかく(A < B)

But listing these seemed like excessive detail on Lewis; I included the diagram mostly "for color". Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have cited the sentence to pages 118–142, which corresponds to the whole chapter on "Logics" and contains the image. The sentence is not a very specific claim, so it would seem strange to me to cite a very specific page. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, that is helpful! -- LWG ^talk 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've made a few changes to try to remove some wording that sounds AI-generated. Pangram still thinks a significant percentage is AI-assisted, though I am dubious. Pangram doesn't like expressions such as "typically designed", "streamlined", "as a bridge between", "they also disagree over", "rationally compelling", "landscape". I think there may be some false positives in its assessment. I've also removed a lot of hyphens: I don't know anyone who hyphenates "possible worlds" or "selection function". Dezaxa (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have removed uses of "style" which I think might also do this. But really, this sort of thing has nothing to do with standards of sourcing or encyclopedic tone, so I don't think it's what matters for Wikipedia. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Did you use AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]