> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
