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.
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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.
> 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.
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