Abram:
Maybe you started at an earlier age and at the 'beginning' (school?).
 I used my own common sense logic with my 2 doctorates in a 1/2 century
successful R&D activity in natural sciencences and THEN tried to barge into
scientific "logics" in medias res. My mistake.
Now - another 1/4 c. later I don't feel like staring to change my ways of
thinking - anew.
Please, count me out.

John



On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Abram Demski <abramdem...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > 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 <jami...@gmail.com> 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 <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.
> >> 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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to