[the_conscience]

I’m not arguing against the natural language logic. I’m arguing that unstated premises change the meaning of the conclusion.

[D-fendr]

I’m arguing that unstated premises change the meaning of the conclusion.

Conclusions in formal logic are either true or false. Meaning taken from the conclusion is another thing to discuss outside the proof.

If a premise is not necessary it *should* be unstated.

[D-fendr]

To be more correct:

Conclusions in formal logic are either true or false - or unproven or improper in form, etc.

Meaning taken from the conclusion is another thing to discuss outside the proof - the original proof. If meaning is another conclusion, then it is subject to the same requirements as the first.