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.
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.
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
> 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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at