Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option A: a redirect to cumulative distribution function
• Option B: a disambig between that article and probability density function
• Option C: an article with expository content, or
• Option D: deleted (would probably require further process) --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Aside from that, in my opinion the article needs substantial improvements:

• The article should place implicational calculus in its historical context by tracing its development from ‘’Begriffsschrift’’, through ‘’Principia Mathematica’’, and on to later contributions by the Lwów–Warsaw school, Gentzen, and others. This would reveal the evolution from the axiomatic Hilbert-style proof systems to the more intuitive methods of analytic tableaux, natural deduction or sequent calculus.
• The article should highlight that implicational calculus — with ${\displaystyle \bot }$— adequately covers classical logic, but does not suffice for full intuitionistic logic, where conjunction (${\displaystyle \land }$) and disjunction (${\displaystyle \lor }$) are essential, rather than merely syntactic sugar. This important distinction should not be overlooked.

As to the sections,

• The section Completeness is either undocumented or based on (forbidden) original research. The reader loses track in the midst of formal derivations.
• The section The Bernays–Tarski axiom system should either be relocated to the article List of axiomatic systems in logic or better justified in context. Highlighting one alternative among a plethora of axiom systems appears arbitrary and lacks relevance to the broader purpose of the article.
• The section Satisfiability and validity discusses the NP-complexity of the propositional satisfiability problem. Either the computational complexity angle should be considered as beyond the scope of the article and removed, or should be addressed with appropriate context. Note that the examples provided implicitly use the method of analytic tableaux, while the article only deploys Hilbert-style deduction systems.
• The section Adding an axiom schema illustrates that adding non-tautologies —think of a bare propositional variable ${\displaystyle P}$— as axioms makes the system inconsistent. This is a trivial point and comes across as unprofessional. The section should be removed.
• The section An alternative axiomatization is undocumented and lacks references. Without a proper citation, it appears to be original research and should either be sourced or omitted.

––– Marc Schroeder (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)