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 article's subject. |
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
[edit]This 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
[edit]This 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
[edit]I'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)