Talk:Sequent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I propose merging this page into the sequent calculus page, and turning this page into a redirect to the latter. ---- Charles Stewart 17:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Spelling Context
Note to self and any others who embark on search & correct missions to correct succede to succeed (the non-math-literate ones like myself, anyway) - succedent is in fact a real word and correctly spelled as such. Those naturally drawn to the subject matter of which this entry is a part no doubt already knew that - just a note for others. Longshot14 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Careful with the redirects!
I just got to this page by clicking on the word assertion in another page. This word was interpreted as Logical assertion which was then redirected here. I think we need to have a separate article for assertion, even if the content of the latter might be minimal. Thanks! dcresti 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong rule
Isn't the rule given in the "Rules" section upside down? It is certainly sound (tough not so useful, and atypic), but the other way round it would be the cut-rule, which is probably what was intended. Mattias Ulbrich 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed a phrase
I removed the following:
- It may help to point out that we assign these meanings to these symbols. The :rules themselves behave in a mechanical nature and do not carry underlying :meaning. See Gödel's incompleteness theorems for more on that topic.
as it is not clear to me what this is trying to say, and how it is helpful. Zero sharp 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)