Talk:Conditional logic

Philosophy: Logic / Language / Analytic Mid‑importance

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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language
	Analytic philosophy

Linguistics: Philosophy of language Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

New Article

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]

Citations need page numbers

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

Towards removal of the LLM template

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]