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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
