Talk:Admissible rule

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

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Untitled[edit]

I replaced Admissible inference rule with a redirect to this page. I believe that the other article was incorrect: Admissibility is not about composing existing inference rules, but about facts that arise because those inference rules are the only ones in the system. For instance, one cannot generally construct the cut rule by composing other rules (then it would be derivable); rather, one must actually perform a computation on the derivations of the premises in order to form a derivation of the conclusion.

A while ago I wrote some information on admissibility in the article on inference rules. I think the material rightly belongs in that article, but surely the article "Admissible rule" shouldn't be a stub that's shorter than the discussion in some larger article. Thoughts? Brighterorange 22:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. This article states that the concept of an admissible rule was introduced in 1955, yet Gentzen showed Cut was admissible in LK in 1934, according to the article on the Cut elimination theorem. Am I confusing matters here? Are we talking about two different notion of admissibility, or what? DPMulligan (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentzen proved in 1934 the cut-elimination theorem for his sequent calculus. He did not isolate admissibility as a general concept, which entered the proof theory jargon only much later. There is no need or reason to refer to admissible rules in the statement of Gentzen's theorem. — EJ (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Example 3 [ <>p & <>~p / _|_ ] says that It is derivable in GL and S4.1, but i don't think it is derivable in GL (Boolos in "the logic of provability"(1993) even uses it as countermodel for GL on page 124. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.109.243 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Admissible rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718020147/http://tocl.acm.org/accepted/318wolter.pdf to http://tocl.acm.org/accepted/318wolter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]