To Jim.
I feel like a big problem with metamath is that it just isn't satisfying
without some foundational understanding of mathematical logic. Sure, you
can follow proofs and see that each step is justified by digging down 100
layers, but it's not pretty. For motivation on how to construct proofs
from scratch and feel confident, you really need to understand classical
logic from a higher perspective. Sure, there are tools that fill in the
gaps for you, but I'm the kind of person that really needs to understand
all the nuts and bolts to feel good about something. It's also hard to
convince myself that I understand a topic if I am not able to explain it to
others. Writing a pdf is the way I'm learning.
I think I might need to invest in a better text. I've been trying to read
Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Mandelson (because I found it for
free), but can't stand the layout. The author does nothing to make
important definitions stand out and the proofs are all jammed into a single
paragraph and not always worded well either. I do have a good text on ZFC
set theory ("Axiomatic Set Theory" by Suppes) and have taken a class on
that a long time ago. It just isn't super formal and doesn't cover logic
or proof theory at all. I'd like to find a better introduction to logic
but I'd hate to buy a clone of Mendelson. It's tough to tell how good a
text is based on reviews.
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 7:08:50 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote:
> On 7/4/23 15:07, Marshall Stoner wrote:
>
> > What I'm writing is not directly connected with meta-math, but
> > something that I feel could help explain it better for novices
>
> I'd advise you to follow where the inspiration leads you. If you end up
> with something which has a lot of metamath notation and reference to
> metamath theorems by name, that's great, and may indeed be helpful to
> put on the web site in one form or another if you want to contribute it
> in that fashion. If what you want to do (in terms of how it makes sense
> to present the material or whatever) ends up diverging more from
> metamath in detail and ends up being more of a general logic textbook,
> that's cool too.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/48543c4c-282a-4f69-b408-e8e7796de91an%40googlegroups.com.
