Talk:Leibniz operator

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Tijfo098 in topic Why Leibniz ?

Mistake?

edit

The article states:

 

that defines   is equivalent to the condition

  if and only if  .

This is only true if T is a complete theory. Is it possible the article means :  if and only if  ?


Why Leibniz ?

edit

It would be nice to see some indication of the rationale for this operator being named for Leibniz; what part of his work (presumably in a precursor of algebraic logic) does it encapsulate ? (c.f. my rationale for applying the same name to tensor operators obeying Leibniz's product rule, which I had done before hearing of the name's use in algebraic logic.) 84.215.6.188 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't tell for sure, but I think it is a reference to Leibniz's law.—Emil J. 15:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Diagram

edit

Someone may want to add here the diagram from [2] p. 25. Of course, it would be better if all those notions are defined in the wiki article, which is currently far from doing, even for those classes that it does mention. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply