> I was looking at a dozen books as well and did not find those signes
> explained, not in footnotes, not in appendicis, not as intro- or post-
> chapters. They were just applied from page 1.
> So I gave up.
That's funny. I never had that experience. There *are* a great many
signs to learn, but somehow I read all the books in the right order so
that I know the simpler signs that the more complex signs were being
explained with. :)
--Abram
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Mikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> Bruno:
>
> could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic?
> (I can read the dictionaries, Wiki, etc.)
> I always say :common sense, but what I am referring to is
> -- -- M Y -- -- common sense,
> distorted - OK, interpreted - according to my genetic built, my experience
> (sum of memories), instinctive/emotional traits and all the rest ab out what
> we have no idea today yet.
>
> I never studied 'formal' logic, because I wanted to start on my own (online
> mostly) and ALL started using signs not even reproducible on keyboards and
> not explained what they are standing for. As I guessed: the 'professors'
> issued "notes" at the beginning of the college-courses (($$s?)) and THERE
> the students could learn the 'vocabulary' of those signs.
> You also use some of them.
>
> I was looking at a dozen books as well and did not find those signes
> explained, not in footnotes, not in appendicis, not as intro- or post-
> chapters. They were just applied from page 1.
> So I gave up.
>
> John M
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Abram,
>>
>>
>> On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:55, Abram Demski wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I'm starting a mailing list for logic, and I figured some people from
>> > here might be interested.
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic
>>
>> Interesting! Thanks for the link. But logic is full of mathematical
>> mermaids and I am personally more problem driven. I may post some day
>> an argument for logical pluralism (even a classical logical argument
>> for logical pluralism!), though. Ah! but you can easily guess the
>> nature of the argument ...
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > I've looked around for a high-quality group that discusses these
>> > things, but I haven't really found one. The logic-oriented mailing
>> > lists I've seen are either closed to the public (being only for
>> > professional logicians, or only for a specific university), or
>> > abandoned, filled with spam, et cetera.
>>
>>
>>
>> But it is a very large domain, and a highly technical subject. It is
>> not taught in all the universities. It is not a well known subject.
>> Unlike quantum mechanics and theoretical computer science, the
>> difficulty is in grasping what the subject is about.
>> It take time to understand the difference between formal implication
>> and deduction. I have problem to explain the difference between
>> computation and description of computation ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > So, I figured, why not try to
>> > start my own?
>>
>>
>> Why not? Actually I have many questions in logic, but all are
>> technical and long to explain. Some have been solved by Eric, who then
>> raised new interesting question.
>>
>> Have you heard about the Curry Howard isomorphism? I have send posts
>> on this list on the combinators, and one of the reason for that is
>> that combinators can be used for explaining that CH correspondence
>> which relates in an amazing way logic and computer science.
>>
>> Do you know Jean-Louis Krivine? A french logician who try to extend
>> the CH (Curry Howard) isomorphism on classical logic and set theory. I
>> am not entirely convinced by the details but I suspect something quite
>> fundamental and important for the future of computer science and logic.
>> You can take a look, some of its paper are in english.
>> http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~krivine/
>> Jean-Louis Krivine wrote also my favorite book in set theory.
>> The CH correspondence of the (classical) Pierce law as a comp look!
>>
>> Don't hesitate to send us link to anything relating computer science
>> and logic (like the Curry-Howard isomorphism), because, although I
>> doubt it can be used easily in our framework, in a direct way, it
>> could have some impact in the future. Category theory is a very nice
>> subject too, but is a bit technically demanding at the start. Yet, it
>> makes possible to link knot theory, quantum computation, number
>> theory, gravity, ...
>> Not yet consciousness, though. Intensional free mathematics still
>> resist ...
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > In fact, I originally joined this list hoping for a logic-oriented
>> > mailing list. I haven't been entirely disappointed there,
>>
>> You are kind!
>>
>>
>> > but at the
>> > same time that isn't what this list is really intended for.
>>
>> Logic is a very interesting field. Too bad it is not so well known by
>> the large public. The everything list is more "theory of everything"
>> oriented. Logic has a big role to play, (assuming comp) but physics,
>> cognitive science and even "theology" can hardly be avoided in a truly
>> unifying quest ... And we try to be as less technic as possible, which
>> is for me very hard, ... oscillating between UDA and AUDA.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>
--
Abram Demski
http://dragonlogic-ai.blogspot.com/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon May 18 2009 - 15:39:56 PDT