Talk:Relevance logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Relevant vs relevance

I propose we change the preferred name to relevance logic. Pro:

  1. It is the spelling prefered by the standard-setting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  2. It is the term preferred in the topic defining Anderson and Belnap
  3. It is marginally more popular according to google:
    • "relevant logic" -> 2900 hits, and 30 for intitle:"relevant logic"
    • "relevance logic" -> 3090 hits, and 56 for intitle:"relevance logic"

I concur. Further pros:

  1. Most of the prose in this article is mine anyway; I developed a stub that already existed under "Relevant", though I'd have preferred "Relevance." Does that give my opinion some weight?
  2. Those google stats probably understate the matter: "relevant logic" can also occur as a modified common noun rather than as a proper name, as in: "In order to research his paper, he read through all the relevant logic texts." All the logic texts, that is, relevant to his paper. User:136.142.22.242

Cons:

  1. Conservatism ---- Charles Stewart 20 Oct 2004
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Talk%7ERelevance_logic_0245.html"