Talk:Jaina seven-valued logic

This article was submitted as part of the 2016 Wikipedia Asian Month.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jaina seven-valued logic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Jainism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPASIA10k

Comparison with other systems of logic

The article would benefit by a comparison with other historic logic systems. It could answer, e.g. questions such as:

Do other logic systems use more than two truth values?
Do other logic systems combine more than two basic truth values? (Compare with Jainism's three values: True, False, Unassertible.)
Do other logic systems systematically examine combinations of basic truth values?
Do other logic systems contemplate "a globally inconsistent set of propositions"? (My emphasis.)

There is a mathematical literature of multi-valued logic systems, e.g. the work of Rosser and Turquette, which (roughly speaking) shows that, for most purposes, an n-valued logic system effectively reduces to our common binary logic.

However, what distinctions different philosophies make - or equivalently, what questions they ask - in setting up their logic systems, is of interest to philosophers and mathematicians as well as everyday practical reasoners (such as medical practitioners, criminologists and jurists), who seek to effectively deduce further truths from given ones as a basis for action. yoyo (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unassertibility is undefined

There are many possible interpretations of the word 'unassertible'. Having no definition or examples leaves this entry not entirely informative. Simply saying that it is a third value that combines with true and false is insufficient.

Possible interpretations:

Stoic: Cannot be said in a way that is consistent. (globally or locally?)

Colloquial: Cannot be expressed in the system's language. (globally or locally?)

[Unknown class]: Something else.

. Kikilamb (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]