Talk:Affirming the consequent

Making this article more approachable
I think this fallacy is much more common than this page makes it seem, and the technical jargon as used in the current form doesn't make it as useful or accessible a reference as I would like. I intend to make this article and its sibling, Denying the antecedent, more fun and useful so that people can be linked to them and hopefully be informed by them. I think putting a quote or two up top, like in some other fallacy pages, might be a good start, as well as perhaps some additional examples, hopefully as simple as practical. MisoprostolTea (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect symbol use?
In the section titled "Form": why is the double turnstile (\vDash,\models) of semantical entailment used? It seems that this might be due to the toolbar not being functional, since whoever edited this section used the appropriate code \vdash. It should instead be the single turnstile of syntactical entailment. Leucippus 03:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's just there in error. Correct away! MarmotHead (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Firstly, I shall see whether or not the math toolbar works at all. Another problem is the following sloppiness that pervades a lot of the logic articles: the first order variables 'x' and 'y' are used illegally in place of what should be propositional variables 'p' and 'q' which leads to ill-formed formulae. Leucippus 03:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just tried using the correct code and have got a 'syntax error.' I wonder whether the current pc I'm using is lacking the required instalments or whether the math toolbar is out of action. Leucippus 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)