Talk:Monotonicity of entailment
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monotonicity of entailment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Impenetrable
editThis article is completely impenetrable to anyone who doesn't already understand the concept. I would suggest trying to use more examples. It would also be worthwhile trying to explain in simple terms how this concept is used - is it a philosophical concept? A mathematical one? Is it used in particular fields like computer science for specific purposes? I've read the article and I'm completely clueless. 2.121.223.8 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thin
editThis was very thin. I wasn't really able to work out what monotonicity was from this discussion. A more extensive discussion would help, especially as the article on non-monotonic logic basically relies on this one to get across the whole concept. Examples wouldn't hurt, either. --LarsMarius (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of July 2023
editI've rewritten the text to make it easier to understand. I've added two references and I hope that justifies the removal of the "needs more references" tag. Dezaxa (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Example
editThe example given here of an argument that exhibits monotonicity (flagged as a spelling error) is: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." And the additional premise that demonstrates it has this property is given as: "Cows produce milk." The example concludes that: "the argument remains valid with the additional premise, even though the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion" However, surely the argument 'remains' valid BECAUSE, and perhaps ONLY because, cows have got nothing to do with it, as if the added premise were "Socrates is dead", Socrates would NO LONGER be mortal (he WAS mortal, as his death proves, but is no longer, his corpse is only subject to decay).
Is there a non-mathematical, real world example, similar in form to the one given, that shows an argument that is unarguably monotonistic (if that's a word), i.e that NO POSSIBLE additional premise can invalidate it. The current one seems to fail to demonstrate the property theorized. LookingGlass (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)