We assemble material from the literature on matrix methodology for sentential logic—without claiming to present any new logical results—in order to show that Gödel once made (or at least, is quoted as having made) an uncharacteristically ill-considered remark in this area.

This paper investigates when two abstract logic-based argumentation systems are equivalent. It defines various equivalence criteria, investigates the links between them, and identifies cases where two systems are equivalent with respect to each of the proposed criteria. In particular, it shows that under some reasonable conditions on the logic underlying an argumentation system, the latter has an equivalent finite subsystem, called core. This core constitutes a threshold under which arguments of the system have not yet attained their final status and (...) consequently adding a new argument may result in status change. From that threshold, the statuses of all arguments become stable. (shrink)