text:
Talk:Korochun

In the Kostur (Kastorian) dialect of the Macedonian/Bulgarian language, Krachun refers to Christmas.

As teh Kastirian slavic dialect is the oldest salvic dialect still spoken (not having undergone any major changes in a millenia), it seems to point that "Krachun" is assuredly of slavic origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.2.20 (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Halloween?
Why 'version of Halloween'? What All Saints' Eve has to do with Karachun, besides being originated from another pagan calendar festivals?

--barbatus 17:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It'd be nice to have something on what actually happened. --Kizor 06:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

- But doesn't the Romanian Craciun derive from the Latin Creatio, -nis [Romanian being a Latin language afterall], which has the same twofold meaning as the Greek Gen(n)esis, namely Creation/Birth, since this word (Craciun, Korochun, Karacsony) is the word for Christmas (The Birth of the Saviour) in Romanian, Slavic, and Hungarian. (And what exactly does Christmas have to do with Haloween -- the Eastern-Orthodox day for the commemoration of the departed is in Spring, right after Easter -- anyway, in any case NOT in Winter).

Also, taking into consideration the fact that the Arian-believing Goths crossed Romanian teritory somewhere in the first centuries of the Christian era, and even Wulphilla's Bible was translated on the territory of present-day Romania, (the Arian belief stating that Christ the first, fore-most, and most important and venerable creation of God, but not actually God Himself), I think that this particular argument has even better weight.

Just a thought. -- Craciun Lucian.

P.S. : Craciun is also a very popular family-name, as well as first-name, in the Romanian language. Do Korochun or Karacsony share the same popularity within the Slavic or Hungarian languages?

 * This article needs sources. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Move
Can we have an English language reference for Koroksun? I have found several ones that render the name as "Korochun", including an early translation of the Novgorodian Chronicle. Recent edits are also very confusing. Did this festival exist, yes or no, how do Russian sources call it, which is the usual English transliteration ??? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Koroksun or Korochun?
A Google search for "koroksun slav" comes up with only this page. Searching Google for "korochun slav" comes up with about 58 matches. Also check out the Russian version of this article, "Korochun" Корочун. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is not a largely accepted etymology, even for Slavic languages
For simplifying, please see the list, the brief inventory made in [DER] Dicţionarul etimologic român, Alexandru Ciorănescu, Universidad de la Laguna, Tenerife, 1958-1966

For Romanians (speaking a Latin language), phonetically, logically and semantically, Crăciun most likely came from Latin creātiōnem, by considering its second meaning of “children” (first meaning is creation)

[DER] Dicţionarul etimologic român, Alexandru Ciorănescu, Universidad de la Laguna, Tenerife, 1958-1966

The same [DER] Dicţionarul etimologic român, Alexandru Ciorănescu, Universidad de la Laguna, Tenerife, 1958-1966 list the following etymons and language radicals, be various experts

1)	 Hasdeu (Buda’s Lexicon); lat. Crastĭnum and lat. (in)carnatiōnem

2)	Schuchardt in Literaturblatt (VII, 154; ZRPh., XV, 93) proposed Christi- iēiūnium ( lat. Christi- and not clear second element ) as with Albanian Kèrsendeljë

3)	Meyer proposed Latin Christi natalia

4)	P. Papahagi (Conv. Lit., XXXVII, 670; Puşcariu 407; Capidan, Dacor., III, 142; T. Papahagi, LL, III, 211-3) proposed Lat. călātiōnem „the priest addressing to people in the first day of each month” wasn’t accepted by Iorga (Revista istorică, XVIII, 220).

5)	Mladenov considers the Bulgarian kračon, kračunek as a direct borrowing from Latin

6)	Daničič, V considers the Serbian Kračun as a „name of person”

7)	Jagič, Arch. slaw. Phil., II, 610; Schuchardt, Arch. slaw. Phil., IX, 526; Berneker 604; Capidan, Raporturile, proposed a Romanian origin for the Slavic word

8)	The etymon creātiōnem was proposed, with the meaning „created” or „born” by A. Densusianu, Jagič, Arch. Slawe., Phil., XXXIII, 618, Pascu, Beiträge and Pascu, I. This proposal was not unanimously accepted

Wagner points out the following: “The phonetics Crăţun, Crăciun, Cărţun (Megleno-Romanian) points out to a Latin etymon coming from lat. creātiōnem, with meaning of „children” like in Sardinian kriathone and Spanish criazón (see crio). Most likely Crăciun meant, at the beginning, „Jesus children”, that explains the spreader use with names in surnames, and later on the personated fes.

Blurall (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Blurall (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Folk" Etymology (!)
It can hardly be called "folk" etymology when the Romanian Etymological Dictionary upholds this view, as does the Archive for Slavic Philology. Perhaps the best thing per NPOV standards would be to present the views of both sources, especially since it is generally and openly agreed by both that the etymology is rather uncertain. Some even argue for a Hungarian origin. — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Korochun --> Koliada
Korochun=Koliada (sk:Kračún (slovanský sviatok)), cs:Kračún Dawid2009 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Korochun


text: User talk:148.233.159.24

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:148.233.159.24


text:
Series 7

Series 7 may refer to:
 * The seventh season of any of many shows or series; see and
 * Series 7 exam, officially the General Securities Representative Exam, the most comprehensive financial securities exam offered by the FINRA
 * Series 7: The Contenders, a movie made in 2001. This film is also commonly referred to as Series 7
 * Series 7 or Series VII, a size of Photographic Filter used on cameras and other optical devices
 * Series 7, often used to describe the BMW 7 Series of automobiles
 * Series 7 olinsky sable-hair brushes from Winsor & Newton
 * Psion Series 7, a notebook computer from Psion
 * Series of seven

title: Series 7


text:
Talk:Joyce Gilchrist

Jeffrey Pierce
There seems to be alot of information about the Pierce case in relation to the rest of the article. Should this be broken off into a new article? Also, I removed an unsourced statement about Mr. Pierce 'losing his family'. He was not divorced and lives with his family now, so he did not 'lose them'. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Jeffrey_Pierce.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemwelch (talk • contribs) 03:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Todd Pierce
Should a link be created for him which redirects here? Jokem (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joyce Gilchrist


text:
Benjamin Franklin Bache

Benjamin Franklin Bache (August 12, 1769 – September 10, 1798) was an American journalist, printer and publisher. He founded the Philadelphia Aurora, a newspaper that supported Jeffersonian philosophy. He frequently attacked the Federalist political leaders, including Presidents George Washington and John Adams, and historian Gordon S. Wood wrote that "no editor did more to politicize the press in the 1790s." His paper's heated attacks are thought to have contributed to passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the 5th United States Congress and signed by President John Adams in 1798.

The grandson of Benjamin Franklin, Bache was often referred to as "Lightning Rod Junior" after his famous grandfather's experiment. The son of Sarah Franklin and Richard Bache, he died at 29 in the yellow fever epidemic of 1798.

Early life
Sarah "Sally" Franklin, the only daughter of Benjamin Franklin and Deborah Read, met Richard Bache while on a visit away from her parents. They were married on November 2, 1767. On August 12, 1769, she gave birth to their son, Benjamin Franklin Bache.

From the moment she set eyes on her grandson, Deborah Read Franklin fell in love with Benjamin, whom she called “her little kingbird.” She took to “Benny,” as she called him, as her very own. She and her husband had lost their only son, Francis Folger Franklin, at the age of four from smallpox. She and Benjamin had earlier taken in his illegitimate son, William Franklin, as an infant at the beginning of their marriage, and raised him in their household.

Benjamin Franklin Bache was baptized on August 30, 1769, in Christ Church in Philadelphia. His godmothers were his paternal aunt and Deborah Read Franklin. His godfathers were his uncle and grandfather Benjamin Franklin, who had a proxy at the ceremony, as he was on an extended diplomatic mission in England.

On December 19, 1774, Deborah Read died. Although he was at her funeral, the boy Benjamin regretted not having been at his grandmother's deathbed. In May 1775, at the age of five, Bache met his grandfather Benjamin Franklin for the first time when he returned from England. His grandfather's arrival brought more tumult to his home, as Franklin had brought with him William Temple Franklin, his 15-year-old grandson, who was the illegitimate son of William Franklin.

On October 29, 1776, Franklin took his two grandsons along on his diplomatic mission to France to negotiate a firm alliance. Bache was seven when their party boarded the USS Reprisal, and sailed for France. They suffered violent storms, and attacks by hostile British ships. Soon after arriving in France, Benjamin Franklin enrolled Bache in a local boarding school run by Mr. d’Hourville. Without any English speaking students attending the school, Franklin later transferred him to Le Coeur's along with other students from the British North American colonies, such as Charles Cochran, Jesse Deane, and John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams of Massachusetts. In the spring of 1779, Benjamin Franklin sent Bache to Geneva, as he wanted Bache to gain experience in a Republic. By June 1783, Benjamin Franklin was ready to recall his grandson to Paris, where he would study how to be a printer until they left Europe to return to Philadelphia in 1785.

Bache was a good student at the University of Pennsylvania, having graduated in 1787; later at a school in Geneva, Switzerland, he won the school prize for translating Latin into French. Perhaps affected by being taken from his family at such a young age, as well as his grandfather's lengthy absences due to his diplomatic work, Bache appeared depressed and shy as an adolescent.

Marriage and children
Bache met Margaret Hartman Markoe in 1788. In November 1791, they married and she moved into 322 Market Street. In 1792, they moved to 112 High Street in Philadelphia. They had their fourth child in September 1798. Benny contracted yellow fever about the same time and died. Before he died, Bache hired William Duane to help run the business with Margaret. Her mother died in 1790.

Printing career
After a few years at Le Coeur's, Franklin began having Bache trained for a career as a printer-publisher, as he had been. In the early months at Geneva, the youth was under the care of Philibert Cramer. At the age of 13, he was also learning the classics: he was already interpreting Telemachus, Terence, Sallust, Cicero's Catiline Orations, Lucian, and the New Testament in Greek. In 1781, Bache wrote in his diary about the extensive school work which demanded much of his time.

Upon returning to Philadelphia, Bache began working as a printer at his grandfather's shop at the family's Franklin Court property on Market Street, presaging his future career as a newspaper editor. Bache had learned type-founding as an apprentice in Paris to Francois-Ambrose Didot, the first printer to print on vellum paper. He considered Didot to be the “best printer that now exists and maybe that has ever existed.” After living abroad for so long, he felt that Philadelphia seemed foreign.

As his grandfather was starting to fade, Bache oversaw the print shop's operations, but under the older man's watchful eye. His first print job was "An Ode in Imitation of Alcaeus," a poem by the linguistic scholar William Jones, who decried England's corruption and the misuse of monarchical power. Bache's first ventures in commercial publishing were school texts, including Isaiah Thomas’ collection of writings by Aesop and Erasmus.

His early ventures also included reprinting a series of four Lessons for Children books by Anna Letitia Barbauld, an Englishwoman. She used a Lockean approach of applying behavioral techniques of esteem and disgrace to instill wisdom and virtue. Her works taught children not to cry, mistreat animals, or be idle. In one story, three boys at a boarding school receive cakes from home. Harry greedily eats his cake and becomes sick. Peter hoards his cake until it becomes stale. Billy shares his cake with the other students and eventually with an old blind man. The act of being unselfish made the boy “more glad than if he had eaten ten cakes.”

Newspaper career
Following his grandfather's death in 1790, Bache inherited Franklin's printing equipment and many of his books. He founded The Philadelphia Aurora, a newspaper with an editorial position that surpassed Franklin's fierce pro-French and democratic position. Bache promised, "This paper will always be open, for the discussion of political, or any other interesting subjects, to such as deliver their sentiments with temper and decency, and whose motives appears to be, the public good." He also said, "The strictest impartiality will be observed in the publication of pieces offered with this view."

When he started on October 1, 1790, he called the paper the General Advertiser, and Political, Commercial, Agricultural and Literary Journal. In contrast to other papers, his incorporated articles on the sciences, literature, and the useful arts. Like Bache, many republican opponents criticized the Federalist policies and practices for ignoring the premises of enlightenment egalitarianism. After three months, on January 1, 1791, Bache dropped the word “Agricultural” from his paper's title and removed the motto – “Truth, Decency, Utility” – from the nameplate. He enlarged the size of the paper's pages. Bache told his readers that he could not offer the variety of material originally intended as long as a “more important matter” was at hand. Later that year, Bache also dropped the words “Political, Commercial and Liberty Journal” from the nameplate. Increasingly polemical, the paper promoted political reforms in line with republican ideals.

Bache continued to denounce the Federalists and attacked both the current President, John Adams, and George Washington. He provoked outrage by suggesting that Washington had secretly collaborated with the British during the American Revolution. After passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, legislation supported by President Adams, Bache was arrested. The law may have been written to suppress opponents such as Bache. The persistent theme of Republican journalism of the 1790s was that the federal government had fallen into the hands of an aristocratic party aligned with Britain, and that the Federalists (particularly Washington and Alexander Hamilton) were hostile to the interests of the general public while promoting corporate interests. Bache thought the problem was less the form of governance than the beliefs and behavior of those who governed. He objected to the US Senate's holding its meetings behind closed doors, as he thought that showed contempt for the public. Bache believed discussion about the Jay Treaty, for instance, should have been open to the public.

In November 1794, Bache said that he was renaming his paper to The Aurora and General Advertiser; it was to “diffuse light within the sphere of its influence, dispel the shades of ignorance, and gloom of error and thus tend to strengthen the fair fabric of freedom on its surest foundation, publicity and information.” The name, “Aurora” represented the ascent and accessibility of information promised to its readers. Bache adopted the motto "Surgo Ut Prosim" (I rise to be useful), to honor his grandfather. For Bache, the motto symbolized the dawning, not the setting of the sun on the new republic.

Decline
The Aurora was regularly filled with articles attacking what Bache considered to be Washington's monarchical tendencies, his hostile actions toward France, contempt for the public, and his friendly relations with Britain. After anti-Federalists accused Washington of being too ready to accept public adulation, Bache increased his attacks. The publisher appeared to lose impartiality as he increasingly favored Jefferson and became more hostile to Adams. Bache had not been equally critical of Washington's presidency. Washington had been a frequent visitor at the Franklin family's home. While still a general, Washington enjoyed a close relationship with Bache's grandfather.

Bache's attacks on the administrations of Washington and Adams provoked equal hostility from their supporters. Bache suffered financially for his position, as Jeffersonians turned elsewhere. At one point, he could not pay a five-dollar fine, and increasingly was unable to pay his own employees in a timely manner. Many Federalists withdrew business from him. While he acquired several hundred new subscribers in 1798, he encountered problems in collecting payment. The newspaper's viability declined.

Increasingly, Bache was attacked by other journalists in print. William Cobbett, known by his pen name Peter Porcupine, described him as a "stubborn sans culotte" and proposed that he be treated "as we would a TURK, a JEW, a JACOBIN or a DOG". Even Federalists were taken aback, and his friends became concerned for his safety.

Downfall
In April 1797, while Bache was investigating the construction of the ship USS United States (1797), Clement Humphreys, the son of the ship's architect, physically assaulted him. Bache escaped, but heard remarks from the crowd that he deserved the beating. He had printed an accusation that the ship's carpenters were taking bribes. In May 1798, Bache's residence and office were threatened by a mob. They smashed the glass door leading to his office, but refrained from vandalizing his home. His family was terrified.

Soon after, Bache criticized John Fenno in print. His son John Ward Fenno confronted Bache, demanding that he publicly apologize to his father; when the publisher refused, Fenno assaulted him. Bache fought back and generally refused to be intimidated by such threats.

While the Federalist-dominated Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798 to suppress criticism such as Bache's, Bache was arrested in June 1798 for common-law seditious libel even before the law was passed. He quickly posted bail and continued to publish his paper, condemning the Act in print as a violation of the First Amendment.

Death and legacy
Before being tried, Bache died on September 8, 1798, at the age of 29 from yellow fever during an epidemic; while Philadelphia's worst yellow fever epidemic was in 1793, the disease regularly visited the city. Bache was buried in the Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia. He is regarded as an early champion of freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

His widow, Margaret, relied on the paper's editor William Duane (whom she married in 1800) to continue publication of the Aurora. Duane, who with United Irish émigrés had led protests against the Alien and Sedition Acts, inherited the hostility of Cobbett and Feno. They accused him of advancing principles of interracial democracy in a conspiracy with the French to divide and dismember the United States. The Aurora ceased publication in 1824.

title: Benjamin Franklin Bache


text:
Kia Concord

The Kia Concord is a four-door sedan produced by South Korea's Kia from 1987. It is a license-built version of the 1982 Mazda Capella, and all versions accordingly used Mazda four-cylinder engines. The Capital/Concord lineup underwent a series of facelifts, eventually becoming the "New Capital" and "New Concord" in marketing material. Production of the Concord ended in 1995, while the cheaper Capital continued until late 1996. In 1996, Kia replaced the car with the Kia Credos, which they based on the Mazda GE Platform.

History

First introduced in April 1987, the Concord received the carburetted 99 PS 2-litre petrol FE engine. During 1988, the engine programme was expanded considerably, with the 72 PS 2-litre diesel "RF" added in April, a 95 PS 1.8-litre (F8) in May, a 110 PS fuel-injected version (called the 2.0i DGT) added in July, and finally an LPG powered 1.8 for taxi usage added in August. This expansion allowed the Concord to better compete with the Hyundai Sonata. The DGT's name was a reference to the digital dashboard with which it was fitted.

After the 1991 facelift the engine programme was somewhat restricted, but in March 1992 a comparatively powerful DOHC version of the 2.0 was added, with 139 PS at 6000 rpm.

With the 1995 introduction of the Kia Credos, production of the Concord came to an end. The smaller and simpler Capital continued a little while longer as a low-priced alternative.

Kia Capital

The lower end Capital (K930-series) was added in February 1989 with a carburetted two-valve SOHC version of the Mazda 1.5-litre B5 engine. Power was 80 PS at 6000 rpm. There was also a 1.5 MPFi version with a claimed 95 PS, the same output as that of the fuel-injected 1.8-litre GLX version available until the facelift.

After a change in legislation meaning that cars were now taxed based on displacement, with a major threshold at 1.5 litres, the Capital was available with a Twin Cam, 16-valve B5 engine in May 1990. This surprising development had 115 PS on tap at 6,500 rpm. Top speed was 170 km/h, the same as for the fuel-injected 1.5, but 0–100 km/h acceleration time dropped from 13.5 to 10.0 seconds. After the 1990 introductions of stronger competitors such as the Daewoo Espero and Hyundai Elantra, the Capital received a facelift in November 1991. The facelift was not very deep, the most obvious difference being the relocation of the rear license plate to the bumper rather than between the taillights. The facelift version offered the 1.5 engine as well as a downgraded version of the 1.8, now to carburetted specifications and producing a mere 82 PS at 5000 rpm. This was mainly intended for taxi usage. There was also an export version with the carburetted two-valve 1.5 for Kia's very few export markets, with 73 PS.

In June 1994 the Capital received another facelift, featuring more rounded headlights and a new grille with new Kia logo, replacing the old one with chimney-based design. This was called the "New Capital" in the marketing, although the badging on the car remained plain "Capital". The New Capital was only sold with the 16-valve B5 engine, in GS or higher LS equipment levels. Production of the Capital finally ended in December 1996, overlapping a few years with the Sephia that would eventually replace it.

Kia continued its line of mid-size sedans with Credos (1995), Optima (2000), Lotze (2005) and K5 (2010).

title: Kia Concord


text:
Kevin O'Donnell Jr.

Kevin O'Donnell Jr. (November 29, 1950 – November 7, 2012) was an American science fiction author. He was the son of Kevin O'Donnell, who served as director of the Peace Corps in 1971–72.

Life
O'Donnell graduated from Yale University in 1972. Periodicals ranging from Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine to Omni have printed more than seventy of his shorter works. A number have also been anthologized, both in the United States and overseas. He has published ten books in America, and has been reprinted in the United Kingdom, France, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. In February 1987, the French translation of his 1984 novel ORA:CLE received the 1987 Prix Litteraire Mannesmann Tally.

He served as chairman of the Nebula Award Novel Jury of the Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA) in 1990 and 1991. He chaired the Nebula Award Committee from 1990 until 1998, and acted as Business Manager of SFWA's quarterly publication, the Bulletin, from October 1994 until July 1998. On and off in the late 1990s, he helped maintain SFWA's website. In August 1999, he was appointed Chairman of SFWA's Grievance Committee; he retired from that position on August 15, 2005. On April 30, 2005, he received the Service to SFWA Award, and after his death, the award was renamed in his honor.

The Lunar Resources Company appointed him to its board of directors in November 1994; he was its Acting Business Manager in January 1998 – October 1999.

He died of lung cancer in Cleveland, Ohio, on November 7, 2012.

Novels

 * Bander Snatch, Bantam Books, June 1979, ISBN 0-553-12620-2
 * Mayflies, Berkley Books, December 1979, ISBN 0-425-04290-1
 * 2nd edition, December 1982, ISBN 0-425-05776-3
 * (in Hebrew) מייפלאואר, Am Oved Publishers Ltd., 1985
 * (in Spanish) Efimeras, Ultramar Editores SA, July 1989, ISBN 84-7386-533-2.
 * Caverns (The Journeys of McGill Feighan, Book I), Berkley Books, April 1981 ISBN 0-425-04730-X
 * 4th edition, August 1984, ISBN 0-425-07469-2
 * (in German) Retzglaran, Droemersche Verlagsanstalt Th. Knaur Nachf., July 1985, ISBN 3-426-05813-8
 * Reefs (The Journeys of McGill Feighan, Book II), Berkley Books, October 1981 ISBN 0-425-05059-9.
 * 2nd edition, January 1983, ISBN 0-425-06235-X
 * (in German) Die Wasserwelt, Droemersche Verlagsanstalt Th. Knaur Nachf., October 1985, ISBN 3-426-05830-8
 * War of Omission, Bantam Books, March 1982, ISBN 0-553-20281-2
 * (in German) Der Tisser-Krieg, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Munich, 1995, ISBN 3-453-08577-9.
 * Lava (The Journeys of McGill Feighan, Book III), Berkley Books, April 1982, ISBN 0-425-05248-6
 * 2nd edition, August 1984, ISBN 0-425-07470-6
 * (in German) Der Pflanzenmönch, Droemersche Verlagsanstalt Th. Knaur Nachf., July 1986
 * ORA:CLE, Berkley Books, August 1984, ISBN 0-425-07260-6
 * (in Dutch) ORA:KEL, Meulenhoff-Nederland bv., January 1986
 * (in French) Ora : cle, Editions Robert Laffont, June 1986 (1987 Prix Litteraire Mannesmann Tally)
 * (United Kingdom), Grafton Books, July 1986
 * (in Spanish), Ultramar Editores SA, October 1987

 * Cliffs (The Journeys of McGill Feighan, Book IV), Berkley Books, February 1986 ISBN 0-425-08387-X
 * The Shelter (with Mary Kittredge), Tor Books, August 1987, ISBN 0-8125-2066-1
 * (in Spanish) El Refugio, Ultramar Editores SA, February 1990
 * Fire on the Border, Roc Books, September 1990, ISBN 0-451-45030-2

Non-fiction

 * The Electronic Money Machine (with The Haven Group), Avon Books, March 1984, ISBN 0-380-86751-6.

Short fiction

 * "The Hand Is Quicker", Analog, October 1973
 * Reprinted as "Plus rapide que la main" in Tschai Fanzine de science-fiction, No. 3, March 1975
 * "Alternate", Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, August 1975
 * Alfred Hitchcock's Words of Prey (Anthology #21/Summer 1986), Davis Publications, 1986
 * "Hear No Evil", Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, October 1975
 * "The Tripper", Analog, October 1975
 * "Time Waits For No Man", Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, November 1975
 * Alfred Hitchcock's Shrouds and Pockets (Anthology #26/Winter 1988), Davis Publications, 1988
 * "Shattered Hopes, Broken Dreams", Galaxy, January 1976
 * "A Matter of Pride", Analog, February 1976
 * "Hunger on the Homestretch", Galaxy, March 1976
 * "Brief Respite", Cavalier, June 1976
 * Cavalier Annual, 1977
 * "Next Door Neighbor", Galileo, September 1976
 * "Border Crosser", Cavalier, October 1976
 * "In Xanadu", Galaxy, November 1976
 * "Night Shift", Orbit 19, 1977
 * "The Night Callers", Galileo, April 1977
 * "A Meeting of Minds", Galaxy, June 1977
 * (in German) Ullstein Stories '80, Ullstein 1983
 * "Low Grade Ore", Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, 1977
 * Asimov's Choice: Black Holes & Bug-eyed Monsters, Davis Publications, 1977
 * Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Anthology, Davis Publications, 1978
 * Science Fiction Masterpieces, ed. Isaac Asimov, Galahad, 1986, ISBN 0-88365-713-9
 * "Information Station Sabbath", Analog, August 1977
 * "Report to the Director", Empire #11, 1977
 * "Shadow Play", Swank, December 1977
 * "The Gift of Prometheus", Analog, January 1978
 * Licht des Tages, Licht des Todes, Werner Fuchs ed., Droemersche (Knaur), 1982
 * "The Looking Glass of the Law", Amazing/Fantastic, January 1978
 * The Survival of Freedom, Jerry Pournelle & John F Carr eds., Fawcett, 1981
 * 101 Science Fiction Stories, Martin H Greenberg, Charles G Waugh, & Jenny-Lynn Waugh eds., Avenel Books, 1986
 * "Quinera 3", Analog, February 1978
 * "Do Not Go Gentle", Galileo, March 1978
 * second place, Galileo's 1977 short-short story contest
 * Starry Messenger: The Best of Galileo, Charles C Ryan ed., St Martin's Press, 1979
 * "Far From the Madding Crowd", Galileo, May 1978
 * Midnight Zoo, Volume #1, Issue #2 (March/April 1991)
 * "Stalking the Timelines", Analog, September 1978
 * "Tunnels of the Minds", Galileo, September 1978
 * "Listen to the Rain" (with Al Sirois), Tesseract, 1978
 * "The Dead of Winter", Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine, May 1979
 * "Temple Guardian", Analog, June 1979
 * The Spear of Mars (The Future At War, Vol 2), Reginald Bretnor ed., Ace Books, 1980; Baen Books, July 1988
 * "An Equivalent Reality" (with Robert P King), Confrontation, 1979
 * "Three Aliens", Destinies Vol I #5, October/December 1979
 * "Old Friends", Analog, November 1979
 * "The Raindrop's Role", Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine, November 1979
 * "Judo and the Art of Self-Government", Destinies Vol II #1, Feb/Mar 1980
 * Laughing Space, Isaac Asimov & JO Jeppson eds., Houghton Mifflin, 1982
 * "Marchianna", OMNI, June 1980
 * The Best of OMNI Science Fiction, No 4, 1982
 * (in German) Kopernikus 6, Moewig, 1982
 * "Bloodsong" (with Barry B Longyear), Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine, December 1980
 * "Tears for Emily", Destinies Vol III No. 1, April 1981
 * "Younggold", Berkley Showcase, Vol 4, July 1981
 * "Encroachment", Berkley Showcase, Vol 5, October 1982
 * "Oft in Offwana" (with Al Sirois), Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine, February 1983
 * "Linehan Alone", Amazing/Fantastic, July 1984
 * "Thy Neighbor's Assets", Analog, April 1985
 * "Raccoons", Amazing Stories, July 1986
 * "Rock Garden", OMNI, July 1986
 * "The Million Dollar Day", Analog, October 1987
 * "Fradero Goes Home", Analog, May 1988
 * "Alone and Lame in Diidekland", Pulphouse, 1989
 * "Future's Puppet", Analog, September 1989
 * "Useful Life", Analog, October 1989
 * "A Question of Balance", Analog, July 1990
 * "The Original Magic", Amazing Stories, September 1990
 * "The Important Things in Life", New Destinies, Volume IX/Fall 1990
 * "The Pieces of the Puzzle", The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, November 1990
 * "Who's the Boss?" (by Thomas Bolton) Variations, March 1992 (Vol 14, #3)
 * "Little Brother's Turn to Watch", AMAZING Stories, June 1992 (Vol LXVII, No 3)
 * "Moss Under Bamboo: Twilight", Midnight Zoo, September 1992 (Vol 2, #3)
 * "'Saur Spot", Dinosaur Fantastic, Mike Resnick & Martin H Greenberg eds., DAW, July 1993
 * "An Appetite for Power", Analog, March 1997
 * "The Boys from Bethlehem" (with Denise Lee), The Darkness and the Fire, Jeffry Dwight ed., Wildside Press, August 1998

title: Kevin O'Donnell Jr.


text:
Cookie (film)

Cookie is a 1989 American comedy film directed by Susan Seidelman starring Peter Falk, Emily Lloyd and Dianne Wiest.

Plot
Cookie Voltecki jumps the turnstiles at a public transit station with her friend and is caught by transit security who fine her and bring her to court. There she is defended from her charges by a lawyer she does not know. She is subsequently taken to her estranged father, Dino Capisco, who is about to finish a thirteen-year prison sentence. To straighten Cookie out he sends her to work with Carmine, an old associate of his.

Dino is successfully paroled and goes home with his wife Bunny, but shortly after goes to visit Cookie's mother Lenore Voltecki, Dino's longtime mistress. Cookie is disgusted with the way the married Dino treats her mother and Dino grows frustrated with Cookie, but at Lenore's urging, the two go to a Christmas party at Carmine's. At the party, Cookie and Dino fight and leave early. Aware that he is being followed by federal agents who want to put him back in prison, Dino has Cookie abandon their security detail. When photos of them are in newspapers, Dino tells his wife that Cookie is his driver and begins using her as such.

Dino reveals to Cookie he is actually angry with Carmine, who sold out his shares in a business they had together when Dino was in prison and now refuses to give him the money from the sale. Seeking revenge, Dino calls the union on Carmine's sweatshop and also has some of his men ransack trucks containing Carmine's merchandise. Retaliating, some of Carmine's men shoot at Dino's car while Cookie is driving it and later plant a bomb in Dino's car. However, no one is harmed.

A worried Cookie contacts the FBI. She offers to testify against her father's associates as long as he is put in witness protection. Dino vetoes the idea since he thinks Carmine's men will never stop hunting him down, but Cookie suggests they fake his death so that Carmine will not bother looking for him. Dino and Cookie leak information that Dino has millions of dollars and is planning to retire to Italy. Carmine decides to steal the money and then kill Dino, but the plan goes awry when the money is stolen. Carmine goes to confront Dino and is blown up in his car. The district attorney is horrified that he accidentally killed Carmine, but Cookie tells him he still needs to honor his agreement to put Dino in witness protection, lest she divulge that he murdered someone.

Dino and Lenore leave to go to witness protection. Cookie hugs her father and takes a picture of the three of them as a family.

Cookie attends Dino's funeral while elsewhere Dino and Lenore marry and make plans to spend their lives together with their new identities.

Reception
The film received negative reviews from critics upon its release and has a 13% rating on Rotten Tomatoes from 15 reviews, with an average rating of 4.5/10.

Roger Ebert said the film was funny and pleasant in some sense, but he felt it "[wasn't] very memorable probably because the filmmakers didn't have a clear vision of it themselves."

Music
"Slammer" by Thomas Newman is the opening theme. "I Should Be So Lucky", performed by Australian actress/singer Kylie Minogue, is played over the end credits.

Home media
Warner Archives released the film on made-to-order DVD in the United States on May 4, 2010.

title: Cookie (film)


text: Category:Rosario Central footballers

title: Category:Rosario Central footballers


text:
California Register of Historical Resources

The California Register of Historical Resources is a California state government program for use by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California's historical resources.

The California Register program promotes the public acknowledgment and safeguarding of resources possessing architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance. It plays a role in identifying historical resources for both state and local planning, assessing eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding, and providing specific protections under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Criteria for Designation

 * Connected to events that have significantly influenced the narratives of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion 1)
 * Linked to the lives of individuals who played crucial roles in local, California, or national history (Criterion 2).
 * Exemplifies the unique features of a specific type, era, region, or construction method, or showcases the craftsmanship of a master or possesses notable artistic qualities (Criterion 3)
 * Has produced, or has the potential to produce, valuable information relevant to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (Criterion 4)

Effects of Designation

 * Partial safeguards: If a project poses a threat to the property, environmental assessment might be necessary under CEQA. It is advisable to reach out to your local planning agency for additional details
 * The State Historical Building Code allows the local building inspector to approve alternative building codes
 * The property owner may engage in a contract with the local assessor for a property tax reduction through the Mills Act. Owners have the option to install their own plaque or marker at the resource site


text:
User:Streltzer

Hello. Go Aztecs !!!!

I Protect On-Line Providers of Information
See Press Release
 * "Judge Orders Aztectalk.com Dismissed from Hotly Contested Internet Defamation Lawsuit" (PRWEB) 30 May 2004.

Law

 * Lawyer
 * The McGeorge School of Law
 * Code of Hammurabi

Sports

 * San Diego State University (SDSU)
 * SDSU Aztecs
 * SDSU fans

Stuff

 * Calvin and Hobbes
 * Isaac Asimov (the good doctor)
 * Dr. Asimov's classic essay The Relativity of Wrong
 * Arthur C. Clarke
 * Clarke's law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
 * An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (The Twilight Zone) and On Thursday We Leave for Home
 * The Inner Light (TNG episode) (my personal favorite and winner of the 1993 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation)
 * James Howard Kunstler and his famous Eyesore of the Month webpage, showing us all that the end of civilization is near (or here).
 * Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) (full text) (summary)

title: User:Streltzer


text:
California Historical Landmark

A California Historical Landmark (CHL) is a building, structure, site, or place in the U.S. state of California that has been determined to have statewide historical landmark significance.

Criteria
Historical significance is determined by meeting at least one of these criteria:

 * 1) The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California);
 * 2) Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California; or
 * 3) An outstanding example of a period, style, architectural movement or construction; or is the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

Other designations
California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

A site, building, feature, or event that is of local (city or county) significance may be designated as a California Point of Historical Interest.

Federal historical landmarks

 * National Historic Sites (United States)
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in California

Local historical landmarks

 * Bakersfield Register of Historic Places and Areas of Historic Interest
 * Berkeley Landmarks in Berkeley, California
 * Glendale Register of Historic Resources and Historic Districts
 * Long Beach historic landmarks
 * Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments
 * Oakland Designated Landmarks
 * San Diego Historic Landmarks
 * San Francisco Designated Landmarks
 * San Luis Obispo Historic Resources
 * Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks
 * Santa Monica Designated Historic Landmarks
 * City of Ventura Historic Landmarks and Districts
 * Ventura County Historic Landmarks & Points of Interest

title: California Historical Landmark


text: User talk:70.81.174.24

title: User talk:70.81.174.24


text:
Smok

Smok, the Polish word for "dragon", may refer to:

 * Michał Smok, the alias of Anna Henryka Pustowójtówna (1843−1881), Polish nationalist
 * Slavic dragon, a mythical creature
 * Smok Wawelski, the Wawel Dragon, a famous dragon in Polish folklore
 * Smok (archosaur), an extinct reptile genus
 * Smok, the ancestor of all living Polish Lowland Sheepdogs

title: Smok


text:
Talk:Windsor Castle

Magna Carta
My understanding is that the word 'the' isn't required when referencing Magna Carta. So, should it be removed from the single reference on this page? Random56653 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I removed the word 'the' from 'the Magna Carta' to match with the main Magna Carta article. Random56653 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do that, treating it as a title, you MUST add the italics. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that, references to Domesday Book doesn't seem to get italicised. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's a name, not a title. Most illuminated manuscripts have names too. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm quite new to editing, and I don't think I understand why removing 'the' changes whether something becomes a title and thus has to be be in italics. Of the many pages that link to Magna Carta, some have it italics, some don't. Many thanks for any help you can give me. Random56653 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Neither, 'Legal or constitutional documents' should not be in italics. Does that mean that Magna Carta should not be in italics, as it's a royal charter? Random56653 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it should be treated as a name, with no italics, but a "the" in most contexts. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * According to https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/ and https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/magnacartaclauses/ Magna Carta doesn't use the word 'the'. So combining both rules, I think that we can remove 'the' and remove the italics? Random56653 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

William IV and his children with Dorothea Jordan
William IV is known to have died in Windsor Castle. It is also known he had taken his children with Dorothea Jordan into custody and resided with them. This article should reflect more of what was occurring with King William IV when he was in residence at Windsor Castle. 75.134.159.146 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Windsor Castle


text:
Talk:Strict conditional

August 2005
The article stated: "In logic, a strict conditional is a material conditional that is acted upon by the necessity operator from modal logic".

While that is one way to view it, it is contrary to the history.

C. I. Lewis' original modal logic systems had Possibly, not Necessity, as basic.

Lewis (like J. Barkley Rosser) defined material implication [ p implies q ] as ~(p&~q). (It is not the case that p is true and q otherwise). And he defined strict implication as ~M(p&~q) (It is not possible for p to be true and q otherwise).

So... I did a reword.

-- [[User:Nahaj] Nahaj 2005-08-25

Is the moon made of cheese?
I think that the example shown in this paper is slithgly misleading. The statement “the moon is made of cheese” used as the antecedent of all conditionals is typically false in all possible worlds that many are inclined to consider. While some people might believe that the moon is made of blue cheese, still this choice obscures the fact that strict conditionals can be used for facts that are assumed false but that would be more believable. For example, that the cervus elaphus canadensis is extinct is currently believed true, but yet one can consider the contrary as an actual possibility. I think that changing the antecedent to something that can be possible or not would improve the article. Suggestions? Comments? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a cultural note: I think possibly some subtle history is being missed here. When this issue was discussed after Principia Mathematica, by people that objected to the "material implication" given in it, "The moon is made of cheese" was the traditional example used in the discussions of what implication (or strict implication) should be. (And you see it sprinkled throughout papers in the early nineteen thirties.) Given some seventy years of tradition, I can fully understand why it was there. Nahaj 14:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A question: what was the consequent used in the classical example? I mean, "if the moon is made of cheese then ..."? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't remember. It would have to have been something true only by form. (It would not surprise me if it were 2+2=4). I'll be going back through some papers of the time next month, when I stumble over it I'll drop a note here. (: I assume you have a watch on the page. :) I think, by the way, that reading the papers of the time is a real eye opener on how far logic has come, and how the direction has changed. For example, Lewis' original papers on strict implication appeared mostly in "The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods" and in "Mind; A quarterly review of Psychology and Philosophy", but most modern logicians probably don't consider Psychology the right forum. (And even as late as 1962 Anderson and Belnap's Journal of Symbolic Logic paper "A pure Calculus of Entailment" was funded in part by the [U.S.] office of Naval Research's Group Psychology branch. Nahaj 03:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not quite the reference you want... but close: |"Implication and the Algebra of Logic" C. I. Lewis in Mind, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 84. (Oct., 1912), pp. 522-531. This is in a conjunction, making a point about implication. But, in 1912, it shows it was a standard example. (Nahaj)

Thanks for the reference. Yes, I have this page on my watchlist. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So far, what I've found is that around 1900 "The moon is made of green cheese" was the "canonical" example of a false statement, and used almost any time a false statement was needed for a discussion. The first use I can find of the use in the manner of the "Strict conditional" page example was in "On the Extension of the Common Logic", by Henry Bradford Smith in "The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods" Vol. 16, No. 14. (Jul. 3, 1919), and the consequent was "The angle-sum of a triangle equals two right angles". The consequent used varies over time and author, generally getting simpler over time. 2+2=4 starts appearing much much later. (And therefore probably can't be considered "classical" :) I assume that this answers your original question, and I'm not going to bother to research any further. Nahaj 16:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

corresponding conditional
Edited definition/explanation & added link to main article. No need to say more about corresponding conditionals in this article, if indeed there is a need to mention them here at all. A bit off-topic really, I would have thought. --Philogo 23:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (84.100.243.3 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

(Jean KemperN (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

Logical hexagon
I have created an article for Logical hexagon and refactored a large amount of material contributed byUser:Jean KemperNN. The material is wonderful, but I think it is more appropriate in its own article.Greg Bard (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Jean KemperNN (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC))http://www.grammar-and-logic.com/dossiers.php (Jean KemperNN (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC))http://erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr (Jean KemperNN (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC))(cf. here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.90.42.155 (talk)  (Jean KemperNN (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC))Greg Bard thinks that the logical hexagon of Robert Blanché is something interesting. He evokes "a wonderful material". In my opinion, the substitution of the logical hexagon for the traditional square will render more understandable the problem of strict implication. (79.90.42.155 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC))(Jean KemperN (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)) (84.100.243.244 (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC))(84.100.243.244 (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

Why this?
Why does the article say, 'it is clearly not the case that 2 + 2 = 4 if Bill Gates graduated in medicine'? It seems to me that it clearly is the case. Ocanter (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Revamp
I have completely revamped this page to reflect better the aspects of strict conditionality. I have included sections on related strict conditionals, equivalencies to the strict conditional, distinctions between the strict conditonal, material conditional, and logical implication, and the work of C.I. Lewis on strict conditionals. I have included detailed citations with page numbers. Considering the incomplete coverage and the unorganized, uncategorized layout of the former page, I think the new page will be greatly welcomed. Hanlon1755 (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Given the discussion at Articles for deletion/Strict conditional, I think it's better to resolve some of the issues of fact here on the talk page BEFORE modifying a stable article that has broad consensus. In particular, I believe you're misunderstanding some of the key concepts, and conflating different meanings of the phrase "conditional statement." -- 202.124.72.22 (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * You aren't saying what exactly is the problem. What EXACTLY is the problem here? Unless you can adquately give me a real, concrete concern, YOU shouldn't modify the article! ALL my FACTS are backed up with very notable, respected, published references! So, what is your concern? Maybe I can fix your concerns here. Hanlon1755 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I also want to point out that my revision does not contradict anything that was previously in this article, so I am not "disputing" anything that was already in the article. I have simply added detail to make the article easier for others to understand. 202.124.72.22 (talk) believes I am conflating different meanings of the phrase "conditional statement." I strongly disagree; my editions have made clearer the difference between *strict* conditional statements and *material* conditional statements. Notice how "strict" and "material" are adjectives that modify the noun phrase "conditional statement." There are several different types of "conditional statements" ("conditionals"), what my work has done is make the difference clearer and easier for the reader to understand. What EXACTLY are the "key concepts" you believe I am misunderstanding? Please point out EXPLICITLY the sentences in my revision. Hanlon1755 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I think anyone can see that you've completely changed the meaning of the article, which is supposed to be about strict conditionals $$\Box (p \rightarrow q)$$. These are not the same as ordinary conditionals, and your references to Rosen and Larson, Boswell, et al, for example, are completely misplaced, since they are not discussing strict conditionals. The discussion at AfD should make you realise that the consensus of editors is strongly against your suggested alternate article, which is both incorrect and confusing. And since my PhD is in logic, I'm fairly confident of my position here. -- 202.124.72.122 (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm still waiting for you to give an EXPLICIT sentence in my revision that you believe is wrong! Hanlon1755 (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Both of you, please stop edit warring. I've asked for input from WikiProject Philosophy. Fences  &  Windows  21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * (I was in the middle of writing this, sorry I will stop "warring" now.) Anyways, you seem to be confused because I am not using the notation $$\Box (p \rightarrow q)$$ right from the beginning. To clear up your concern I have added that notation, a type C.I. Lewis originally used, to a new equivalency, (2.), in the introduction of the article. It is important that you realize that today not everybody uses that notation. I have my references to back me up on that one. I disagree on your claim that "strict conditionals are not the same as ordinary conditionals." The ordinary conditional is the proposition that can be written in "if-then" form, but that is precisely what a strict conditional is to begin with! Refer to my sources if you need to. I also disagree with your claim that "Larson, Boswell, et al.,... are not discussing strict conditionals." While they may not use the explicit words "strict conditional," the conditionals they are using are nonetheless strict conditionals as defined by C.I. Lewis. They do not have to use the exact wording "strict conditional" to be using a strict conditional! The type of conditional they are working with has all the properties of the strict conditional, and only the strict conditional. Please, look at the sources yourself and understand this. This latter claim of yours strikes me as outlandish considering it is just downright wrong. It seems to show that you haven't even bothered to check the source yourself. On the discussion at AfD: I hope you realize that *I* was the one to withdraw the nomination. I did not withdraw it because I was wrong about some element of the content (which I was NOT); I withdrew it for organizational reasons. The editors of the AfD discussion are not "strongly against" my "suggested alternate article." Anybody can see in there that the editors are strongly against DELETING the article, not REVISING the article. There is a BIG difference there. And about your "PhD" in "logic": I really don't care. I don't need a PhD in logic to know a contradiction when I see one, as I see between your claims and mine on this very page. At this point I have addressed all of your concerns. But if, somehow, you still think something is "strongly" wrong, remember: I'm still waiting for that EXPLICIT sentence! Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The AfD discussion speaks for itself. As to explicit errors, your whole "Variations of the strict conditional" section mixes up wording for strict conditionals (which are necessary) and wording for ordinary conditionals (which are not). Several of your cited sources are not about strict conditionals (and yes, I have checked them). Your "logical equivalences" section is incorrect, since you have dropped the modal operator on the conditional. There are other errors and instances of confusing wording; the original article was simply much better. -- 202.124.75.203 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * You are now vandalizing the page since you broke the armistice, as ClueBot NG has confirmed. You are misunderstanding the AfD discussion. The consensus of the AfD discussion, which was agreed upon even by me, was that the page "Strict conditional" would not be deleted. Read the discussion again because you are not reading it correctly. Part of the agreement was that I recommended merging the two articles. I originally recommended merging "Strict conditional" into "Conditional statement (logic)," as I even say in the discussion, but have since decided the opposite merger would be better for the sake of organizing the content of the articles. Nobody in the discussion objected to that. That is very clear. You said you have checked the sources: you obviously aren't checking well enough. You seem to be overcome by subjective bias from the AfD discussion rather than rationally accepting the cited sources. I am going to quote directly from Larson, Boswell, et al. 2007, p. 80, where "conditional statements" are discussed: "Conditional statements can be true or false. To show that a conditional statement is true, you must prove that the conclusion is true every time the hypothesis is true. To show that a conditional statement is false, you need to give only one counterexample." The key phrase there is EVERY TIME, as in IN EVERY CASE THAT, as in IT IS NECESSARY THAT. Therefore "conditional statements," as Larson, Boswell, et al. 2007 show, are strict conditionals. Therefore, your claim that "ordinary conditionals" are not necessary is untrue. I agree with you that several of my cited sources are not about strict conditionals, but it's important to note that I have those sources cited because I need to depict accurately non-strict conditionals in order to give a clearer notion of the distinctions between non-strict conditionals, and strict conditionals. Furthermore, my "logical equivalences" section is not incorrect, as you claim, since I am using a different notation than the type you seem to be accustomed to. You then claim that "there are other errors and instances of confusing wording." I do not see any errors or instances of confusing wording, but if you have caught one: Please, explicity write down the sentence in this discussion so that the matter can be resolved here. Hanlon1755 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * No, 202.124.75.203 is not vandalizing. Hanlon, the wholesale replacement of this article's text with your version is not an option:
 * The consensus was clearly in favor of keeping this article. You're welcome to revise it by incorporating some of your text… However, please don't editorialize about “popular misconceptions”, the prior text explained the distinctions you seem to be concerned about much more clearly. You repeatedly cite the same page ranges for claims surrounding that, but those which I was able to review online failed WP:V. I couldn't find either of the Larson, Boswell, et. al. but these appear to be two editions of the same high school Geometry book, so perhaps it's better not to read so much into it? It would seem that there were some “other errors and instances of confusing wording”, but that's neither here nor there now.—Machine Elf 1735   03:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus was clearly in favor of keeping this article. You're welcome to revise it by incorporating some of your text… However, please don't editorialize about “popular misconceptions”, the prior text explained the distinctions you seem to be concerned about much more clearly. You repeatedly cite the same page ranges for claims surrounding that, but those which I was able to review online failed WP:V. I couldn't find either of the Larson, Boswell, et. al. but these appear to be two editions of the same high school Geometry book, so perhaps it's better not to read so much into it? It would seem that there were some “other errors and instances of confusing wording”, but that's neither here nor there now.—Machine Elf 1735   03:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * You guys are terribly misinterpreting the AfD discussion. The editors of the AfD discussion were writing because they did not want to have no article, whatsoever, at Strict conditional. I now agree, strongly, with their position. I agree my decision to nominate the page was a stupid move, but the resulting discussion should not be taken as evidence that the article should not be modified. That's not what they mean. That's not what I mean, either. I believe it's incomplete. 202.124.75.203 (talk) is just confused, as are two editors of the Afd discussion, because I am using notation in the article that they are not accustomed to. I have since addressed those concerns. I will point out that the old version was just as bad at talking about popular misconcpetions by talking about "The paradoxes of material implication." In fact, I will merge the information about the paradoxes of material implication into my revisions. That way the article will be as complete as it possibly can be, since I did not previously mention it in my revisions. Everything else from the old article would just be redundant if I were to merge it into my revisions. Hanlon1755 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I think it's clear that the consensus here is AGAINST the wholesale removal of the original article. The obvious thing to do is to roll back to the original article, and for you to argue for specific changes, as per WP:BRD. -- 202.124.74.104 (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I have addressed every concern that has been brought to my attention. It is clear you are not taking the time to actually read and appreciate the positive contributions I have made to the article. Most importantly for your case, I recommend that you realize that the strict conditional IS in fact the "ordinary conditional" we are so familiar with using. The ordinary conditional is not the material conditional; it is not some other type of conditional. It is the strict conditional. Please, I ask you from the bottom of my heart, read my contribution and realize this. Your understanding of this will change the way you think of conditional statements. Once you understand this, you will be truly enlightened. Hanlon1755 (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Massive undiscussed, much less agreed changes to this article
This article has recently undergone massively large changes, without any preliminary discussion or review. I would request that subject matter experts in this area review these changes. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

BRD Process
As requested, and in order to reach agreement, I have began the BRD Process for this article. I am proposing to modify the article in order to ensure its completeness, accuracy, clarity and nonconfusion for future readers, and applicability to the appropriate fields of study (not just non-classical logic as the old version had been). This notably includes those fields of study that are known to use strict conditionals whether implicitly or explicity, but with different notation, and that are taught in many high school mathematics courses. Hanlon1755 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably some of the information you've added is usable, but every single line you've entered violated WikiFormat guidelines. Propose changes here, before adding.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the truth table should not be here, as it's not truth-functional. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing Changes
As discussed in previous sections "Full Revamp" and "BRD Process," I propose that the article be changed as outlined by the BRD Process I am currently running. Requesting input from other users. Hanlon1755 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been bold, been reverted. Now start discussing here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * OK. I am proposing to modify the article, in the manner provided through BRD, in order to ensure its completeness, accuracy, clarity and nonconfusion for future readers, and applicability to the appropriate fields of study (not just non-classical logic as the old version had been). This notably includes those fields of study that are known to use strict conditionals whether implicitly or explicity, but with different notation, and that are taught in many high school mathematics courses. As a high school student a few years ago, I became confused by the Wikipedia articles on "conditional statements." I was led to believe that the "material conditional" was the usual type of conditional statement; the type I had learned about in high school geometry and in other high school mathematics courses including Algebra II, Precalculus, and AP Calculus. I held this false belief for four and a half years. It was only through my own concerns, efforts, and research that I discovered I was wrong. The conditional statement I had learned in high school was actually the strict conditional, not the material conditional, and not some other type of conditional. I want to prevent confusion in future high school students that may be in the same boat as I. I want to include the more basic, high school side of the story in the article. Please aid me in these efforts by accepting my proposed changes to this article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I am a mathematician, with few knowledge in logic, but I have heard several talks in mathematical logic, especially about formal proofs. Here are some comments on the two versions.
 * Both versions are difficult for a non logician. In both, an introduction is lacking, explaining the differences between the various conditionals. The reader should not be supposed to know or to learn what is a "material conditional" before reading the third line of the article. From this point of view Hanlon1755's version is the worst one.
 * Hanlon1755's version begin with by "In ... mathematics ... a strict conditional is ...". This seem a wrong assertion: In mathematics there is not one logic, but many (first order or higher order logic, intuitionistic logic, logic with or without modus ponens, ... ). In none of these logic, the terminology of "strict conditional" is used. Thus, "in mathematics, the strict conditional is ..." appears to be a non sense.
 * It is clear from the last Hanlon1775's edit, that he want to include his own original research in this page. This not acceptable unless he will provide a reliable citation for each change.
 * D.Lazard (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Hanlon1755's basic premise is also wrong, and hence the additions are not acceptable. The ordinary (material) conditional, as in "Felix is a mammal $$\rightarrow$$ Felix is less than 10 metres tall" (true in our world, but not necessarily true) is not the same as the strict conditional "$$\Box$$ Fred is an unmarried man $$\rightarrow$$ Fred is a bachelor" (necessarily true by definition). In mathematics, ordinary conditionals are not strict conditionals because they may contain free variables, e.g. "x is odd $$\rightarrow$$ x is prime" is true in a context where 1 < x < 9, but not necessarily true. However, if a variable-free mathematical statement is true, then it is necessarily true. -- 202.124.75.120 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Hanlon, rather than proposing change, you might want to try an approach wherein you propose a contribution to the article that you'd like to make.
 * We are trying to be helpful, but you're asking us to do so by not interfering. Declined: your efforts/proposals are still ‘not an option’. Perhaps you're not interested in making a contribution that has a lesser impact?
 * Original research is unwelcome, so to the extent we can say instead, that you've arrived at a synthesis (one you no doubt find compelling, but nevertheless…) on the surface, it seems peculiar to your own experiences, if not simply wrong. Please see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conditionals/ for a more circumspect treatment.
 * Ideally, an article can include more advanced material while remaining accessible to high school students. Perhaps you could develop a section with a suitable treatment of the material you deem appropriate? You can supply any verifiable information that was omitted by your teachers. Please do so without editorializing on how common, confusing or regrettable it might be for a student to find themselves in the “same boat”. Per WP:NPOV, all readers must be allowed to draw their own conclusion in matters of opinion, regardless of how challenging that may be. Please be advised that editors have commented on the inadequacy of your sourcing, but with proper attribution, it needn't necessarily be a problem if you prefer to focus on a single point of view. It will, however, preclude rewriting the entire article (for example).
 * Believe it or not, we're here to help… building the encyclopedia is a collaborative effort.—Machine Elf 1735  23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, we're here to help… building the encyclopedia is a collaborative effort.—Machine Elf 1735  23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
I have added a brief paragraph at the end of the article which may clarify the confusion: only conditionals which are tautologies are automatically strict conditionals. -- 202.124.73.25 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 * ALL conditional statements, whether true or false, are strict conditionals. I don't know where you got the notion that YOU somehow can just change the page, while I for some strange reason can't, but you did not discuss that change here on the talk page before making it. And sadly, I am apparently the more experienced one on the subject. The article still says nothing about hypothesis and conclusion, the basic, fundamental parts of a strict conditonal. The article also seems to have this theme that strict conditionals cannot be expressed in "if-then" form; in fact, it doesn't even say that's true anywhere, even though its a very important part of the strict conditional. The article instead has this underlying tone that "if-then" form is reserved for only material conditionals, which isn't true! In fact, some material conditionals are not even worthy of "if-then" form! The article is still very misleading, and I do not approve of this. I still would like at least some of my additions to be put on the page. Hanlon1755 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of your edits are your original research; however, all "strict conditionals" and "material conditionals" can be written in if-then form. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 * All my edits were cited. Every sentence I added was either explicitly stated in at least one source or was a logical consequence of what was explicitly stated in several sources. I have read the section on original research and understand that this may constitute orignial research (but it may not considering my conclusions are logical consequences and cannot be implied in any other way). If it does though, then that is really a shame because there are multiple sources here that have the conditional statement wrong. People are going to continue to be misled and possibly even hurt by this inaccurate content. I still recommend putting at least some of my additions into the article. Hanlon1755 (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", is not only original research but is also synthesis of published material that advances a position. Logical consequences can not be a justification to contribute what one wants. Just because one person feels there is a logical consequence does not mean this hypothesis is shared. I would argue, with the backing of consensus, that a "logical consequence", without supporting evidence, is conjecture and original research at it's best.
 * If content in an article is wrong then find the source that supports the position you are presenting. If you can not find a source that supports your position then conclusions can be reached that; 1)- Your position is not notable, or 2)- Your position is actually original research.
 * The last may be a problem spread over several articles. I have noticed a trend to use only general references. While this sometimes works it leaves an article vulnerable to multiple tags including verifiability. Content that is supported should be attributed.
 * You stated, "All my edits were cited", and this simply is not true. An editor could tag every single line that is only supported by a general source as, except for the one reference, text-source integrity is nonexistent. Content that is supported should be attributed.
 * I mention all this for a reason: Consensus is a fundamental process in building Wikipedia. The policy on verifiability is supported by 1874 editors (966 anonymous users) and has a section concerning material that is challenged that states,  "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." . The Wikipedia essay Inline citation section "When you must use inline citations" gives a further explanation of,  "Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with, or any similar tag)" , and further this applies to material likely to be challenged. 128 edits and this talk page proves that a lot of material was and is challenged yet there is only one attributed reference.
 * Concerning other editors mistakes; If "there are multiple sources here that have the conditional statement wrong" then there should be a source somewhere that corroborates a correction. If any editor has an issue with content then tag such content and work towards corrections, as material that is referenced must still be included with implied or agreed upon consensus.
 * Conclusion: Providing information that is not original research, which means referenced, will last longer on Wikipedia. At some point some editor will challenge content that is not verifiable and at some period (after that point), the content will either have to be referenced or likely be removed. What good will all this have accomplished then? Please be advised that referenced material in no way means content does not have to pass consensus if challenged.
 * I will be adding a multi-tag because there are issues that need to be resolved including the sources and one reference listed. The article is listed as a "start class" but is really only a stub and needs work. I would hope that that a good article is more important than contributing original research. Otr500 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic)
Editors here may be interested in the related AfD discussion occurring at Articles for deletion/Conditional statement (logic).—Machine Elf 1735  12:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition of strict implication given at the beginning of the article is the definition adopted by scholars and must be respected as such
(84.100.243.150 (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)) (84.100.243.132 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)) ''In logic, a strict conditional is a material conditional that is acted upon by the necessity operator from modal logic. For any two propositions p and q, the formula (p → q) says that p materially implies q while L (p → q) says that p strictly implies q.''

L (p → q)and ~M (p & ~q)are equivalent expressions. They represent the strict implication of q by p not only in the articles of wikipedia but also in excellent authors like the John Lyons of Semantics 1. For this reason, I subscribe without hesitation to what Arthur Rubin writes below: ''It may be that you have a different definition of the strict conditional, but, unless it is published, it has no place in the Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC) on, search''

The definition of strict implication adopted by the contributors of wikipedia and by John Lyons says that p strictly implies q ,if we have L (p → q) or ~M (p & ~q), the latter expression being to be read It is im-possible to have together p and not-q.

L (p → q) and ~M (p & ~q) are equivalent expressions. According to De Morgan's laws, p → q means ~ ( p & ~q). In effect, the material implication of q by p, p → q signifies that one cannot have together p and not-q. p → q signifies therefore that one of two things, either p&q or ~p. For all three conjunctions: p&q, ~p & q, ~p & ~q obviously exclude p & ~q. p&q contains ~ ( p & ~q) and therefore p → q, ~p&q also contains ~ ( p & ~q) and therefore p → q, ~ p & ~q also contains ~ ( p & ~q)and therefore p → q.

In wikipedia and John Lyons, L (p → q) as as well as p ⇒ q symbolizes the strict implication, that is, the material implication p → q acted upon by L the necessity operator from modal logic. If in L (p → q), we replace p → q by the equivalent ~ ( p & ~q), we first obtain L ~( p & ~q) to be read It is necessary not to have the conjunction of p and not-q. It is clear that the necessity not to have is equivalent to the im-possibility to have Thus, instead of L ~( p & ~q) we can write ~M (p & ~q) to be read It is im-possible to have together p and not-q.

The definition of strict implication given at the beginning of the article is perhaps insufficient
First remark: to define the strict implication by saying that it is equivalent to ~ M (p & ~q) is deficient in that the impossibility to have both the fact p and the fact not-q may result from the fact that p is im-possible and not from the fact that p is the cause of its effect q. If we have ~Mp i.e L~p, if p is im-possible, in other words if not-p is "necessary", if not-p is certain, it is im-possible to have p & q as well as p & ~q. ~Mp may be represented by the combination: ~ M (p & q) & ~ M (p & ~q). Therefrom, it clearly appears that ~ M (p & q) and ~ M (p & ~q) are not at all in-compatible. Both are true propositions if p is im-possible. Hence the necessity of adding Mp to ~ M (p & ~q)to eliminate the spectre of ~Mp. But if the first two elements ~ M (p & ~q) and Mp are necessary, they are not sufficient.

Associated with ~ M (p & ~q), the second ingredient Mp eliminates the direful spectre of ~Mp im-possibility of p, that is, L~p certainty of not-p. To be able to say that a fact p is the cause of a fact q, it is evident that the fact p must be thought possible. How could we think that p has an effect q if p is said to be im-possible from the start ?

It is no less clear that if the fact q is certain in any case, whether p is the case or not-p is the case, it is absolutely im-possible to think that the certainty of the fact q is the effect resulting from the fact p exclusively. ~p → M~q is an expression saying that not-p implies M~q the possibility of not-q. Associated with the conjunction ~ M (p & ~q) & Mp, the expression ~p → M~q efficiently eliminates the second state of things incompatible with the strict implication symbolized in good authors like John Lyons by p ⇒ q wrongly held to be equivalent to ~ M (p & ~q).

Type on Google: mindnewcontinent.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.132 (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: the posting was [ refactored] by after Arthur Rubin’s reply. Why such people do not spend one minute to register an account? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 * This no sense makes. Nor, as far as I can tell, does the blog mindnewcontinent.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(84.100.243.70 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

KNOLmnc 1 Something new about Maimonides’ Treatise on logic. On a difference between the canonical text of the Treatise on logic and the three Hebrew translations.

Shalom

Jean-François Monteil

Dear Sir, I answer. If p implies q strictly,if p ⇒ q, to use John Lyons'symbolization, p ≡ Lq to use mine that is to say if p is equivalent to the certainty of q, we have of course ~ M (p & ~q) the impossibility to have together p and not-q. But of itself ~ M (p & ~q) the impossibility to have together p and not-q is not equivalent to p ⇒ q (or p ≡ Lq). For ~ M (p & ~q) may result from ~ Mp, the impossibility of p. For if p is im-possible, it is impossible to have the conjunction of p and q, to have the conjunction of p and not-q as well. The impossibility of p: ~ Mp can be represented as ~ M(p & q)& ~ M (p & ~q). So, if you want to avoid ~ Mp, you must associate Mp with ~ M (p & ~q).

But if this addition of Mp is necessary, it is not sufficient. It is clear that if the fact q is certain in any case, whether p is the case or not-p is the case, it is absolutely im-possible to imagine that the certainty of the fact q results from the fact p exclusively. Lq, the certainty of q is equivalent to ~M~q, the im-possibility of not-q. If not-q is impossible, that means that you cannot have the conjunction of not-q and p and you cannot have the conjunction of not-q and not-p either. ~M ~q is equivalent to ~ M (p & ~q)& ~ M (~p & ~q). Once again, the insufficient ~ M (p & ~q) appears. What I call the third ingredient ~p → M~q signifies that not-p implies the possibility of not-q. So is eliminated the state of things corresponding to the potential fact that q should be certain in any case, whether p is the case or not-p is the case. The certainty of q, if it is to manifest itself, must be something resulting exclusively from p. Cordially. Jean-François Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.111.62 (talk • contribs)

 * "If p implies q strictly,if p ≡ Lq " is wrong. If p → Lq, for some modal logics, it follows that L (p → q), which is one of the formulations of the strict conditional.
 * ~p. M → M~q is not grammatically/syntactically meaningful.
 * It may be that you have a different definition of the strict conditional, but, unless it is published, it has no place in the Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, I submit. I must wait. Jean-François Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.70 (talk) 12 September 2012

Useful further reading
KNOLmnc 1 Crucial importance of the bilateral possible M(p), the third contrary fact represented in the logical hexagon of Robert Blanché applied to modal logic. KNOLmnc 1 Traité de logique modale KNOLmnc 1 About the main problem of modal logic. A formula of the strict implication of the fact q by the fact p: p ≡ Lq. The three ingredients of strict implication and particularly: ~p. M → M~q, the third one. p ≡ Lq seems to be the formula... KNOLmnc 1 The three elements of p ≡ Lq, the strict implication of q by p. The definition to be found in the John Lyons of Semantics 1 must be drastically critized.

(86.75.111.166 (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

 * Please, place the signature after your posting. How this message justifies insertion of a poorly formatted chunk of text loaned from the mindnewcontinentfrenchcorner.wordpress.com website? It is off-line currently (slashdot effect?), but I do not think that Google deceives me about the origin of the problematical text. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, could you first improve the fr:Implication stricte article? I do not understand what do you propose; maybe I will able to understand better something in French (English and French are equally non-native languages to me). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Incnis Mrsi, go to the entry implication stricte, then go to afficher l'historique and click on (actu | diff) 15 février 2012 à 13:42 84.101.36.154 (discuter). . (9 321 octets) (+8 461) (défaire). Thus, you'll get what I write about the three ingredients of implication stricte:(1) ~M (p & ~q) (2) Mp (3) ~p. M → M~q. The second ingredient Mp eliminates ~Mp; the third ingredient ~p. M → M~q eliminates Lq. Both ~Mp and Lq contains the first ingredient ~M (p & ~q)and the point is to eliminate ~Mp and Lq to obtain p ≡ Lq. ~M (p & ~q) alone cannot represent the strict implication of q by p, since clearly ~M (p & ~q) is compatible not only with p ≡ Lq but also with ~Mp and Lq. (86.75.111.166 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)) Jean-François Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.111.166 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You confuse something. There were no edits in February 15, 2012. But I found the version of February 12. Is it your proposal? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sneaky habitude to [ alter old postings] is boring, Mr. Jean-François. Your habitude to make lengthy explanations of [ a simple thing expressed in only 8 digits] is also boring. I hope, this is the text you refer to. I would not log off nor change my user preferences in fr.wikipedia (I never use Paris time) because you are not smart enough to specify a direct URL. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I understood your point. You assert that The True Strict Conditional is not $□(p → q)$, but something even stronger, which can be false if $p$ is impossible. The answer is… not surprisingly…  no.  Wikipedia is not interested in redefinition of already established concepts, at least while a redefinition attempt is not backed by serious researches published in peer-reviewed journals. Sorry, unless you can demonstrate a peer-reviewed paper where the “strict conditional” can be false for an impossible antecedent, your essays have not any chance in the article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Je m'en fous !

Jean-François Monteil

(86.75.111.166 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)) URLs redacted as not being helpful to anything — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.90.42.217 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2013
 * Bon soir, Mr. Monteil. Votre nouveax sites personels? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

while this article is deleted, please fix notation
Although I agree that this article should be deleted, as it is part of the modal logic subject, thus it is a fragment of it. Please use the unicode decimal #10621  to write $$\Box (p\implies q)\equiv$$ p ⥽ q. While this article is either fixed or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.161.209 (talk) 00:16, 2 декабря 2012 (UTC)

Did C.I. Lewis intend them for counterfactuals too?
This article says that C.I. Lewis proposed strict conditionals as an analysis for indicatives, but Will Starr's SEP article says "C.I. Lewis (1912, 1914) defended the strict conditional analysis of subjunctives". Part of me thinks that C.I. Lewis couldn't have made that work for counterfactuals/subjunctives with the tools that existed in his day. But I'd also be surprised if Will Starr got that wrong. I don't have the time or energy to look into this, but wanted to flag it in case somebody else had the relevant knowledge. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strict conditional


text:
Seismicity

Seismicity is a measure encompassing earthquake occurrences, mechanisms, and magnitude at a given geographical location. As such, it summarizes a region's seismic activity. The term was coined by Beno Gutenberg and Charles Francis Richter in 1941. Seismicity is studied by geophysicists.

Calculation of seismicity
Seismicity is quantitatively computed. Generally, the region under study is divided in equally sized areas defined by latitude and longitude, and the Earth's interior is divided into various depth intervals on account of Earth's layering: Up to 50 km depth, 50–300 km, and > 300 km.

The usual formula to calculate seismicity is:

$$S = \frac{\sum_{i} {E_{s0}}_i}{ {\delta \phi}_0 {\delta \lambda}_0 {\delta h}_0 {\delta t}_0 }$$

where
 * $${E_{s0}}_i$$: is the energy of a single seismic event (i.e., earthquake);
 * $${\delta \phi}_0$$: interval of latitude;
 * $${\delta \lambda}_0$$: interval of longitude
 * $${\delta h}_0$$: interval of the hypocenter;
 * $${\delta t}_0$$: interval of the time of the seismic event.
 * The result is seismicity as energy per cubic unit.

title: Seismicity