The “deep inference/calculus of structures” gang is organizing a workshop at ICALP (July 16-17) on “Structures and Deduction: The Quest for the Essence of Proofs.” Deadline for paper submissions is April 15. Another opportunity to visit Lisbon.
Greg Restall has a new book projct: Proof and Counterexample, a text on basic proof theory (sequent calculus and natural deduction, cut elimination and normalization, and such). Knowing Greg’s interests, this will cover proof theory for many non-classical logics. Greg’s draft is online, and the wiki devoted to the book also has a bunch of interesting and useful pointers on typesetting logic and, in particular, proofs. It’s editable, so you, too, can contribute to the project. (Charles already has.)
I’ve been waiting for it for a while, and it has finally arrived: my copy of William Tait’s collection of “essays in the philosophy of mathematics and its history,” The Provenance of Pure Reason. Neither OUP nor Amazon has a table of contents for it up, so here it is:
|2||Remarks on finitism||43|
|1||Appendix to Chapters 1 and 2||54|
|3||Truth and proof : the Platonism of mathematics||61|
|4||Beyond the axioms : the question of objectivity in mathematics||89|
|5||The law of excluded middle and the axiom of choice||105|
|6||Constructing cardinals from below||133|
|7||Plato’s second-best method||155|
|8||Noesis : Plato on exact science||178|
|9||Wittgenstein and the “skeptical paradoxes”||198|
|10||Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind : on the concept of number||212|
|11||Cantor’s Grundlagen and the paradoxes of set theory||252|
|12||Gödel’s unpublished papers on foundations of mathematics||276|
I’m looking forward to reading the appendix to Chapters 1 and 2, which is where Bill takes my dissertation apart.
Proofs and Types, the classic 1989 proof theory text by Jean-Yves Girard (translated and with appendices by Paul Taylor and Yves Lafont) has been online for over a year, I just found out. Now that Troelstra/Schwichtenberg is around, perhaps no longer the first place you’d go to read up on the Curry-Howard isomorphism and normalization, but still very good to have around. (via EFP)
Just got this via FOM:
Logical Lyrics: From Philosophy to Poetics is available,
I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your pertinent citations and aphorisms for Logical Lyrics: From Philosophy, Vincent F. Hendricks, King’s College Publications, March 2005, ISBN 1904987044, the independent follow-up to Feisty Fragments: For Philosophy.
Logical Lyrics contains almost 550 quotations on logic, logicians and logical matters (from a diverse fan of figures including Napoleon Bonaparte and Helena Christensen via Alfred Tarski, Stephen C. Kleene, A.N. Whitehead to Talking Heads and Supertramp) (about 210 individuals total) of which about 80 of these stem from PHILOG members (22 contributors; there is a credit line below your suggestions and all of you are listed alphatically (with country affiliation; The Netherlands, USA, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Ukraine, Canada, Sweden, Iran, Brazil and United Kingdom) at the end of the book under “Contributors”. It took roughly 4 months to collect all of the 550 quotations and track the references, 3 months to obtain the 278 permissions required.
Raymond Smullyan and Melvin Fitting kindly provided the blurbs for the back cover:
I found this collection utterly absorbing from beginning to end. It combines some very sagacious ideas with some choice bits that are delightfully funny.Raymond M. Smullyan, New York
“If I were you, I would buy this book.” What does that mean? It means, “buy this book.” Why does it mean that? Perhaps this book will help you understand. Or perhaps not, but it will certainly be entertaining reading in the meantime.Melvin Fitting, City University of New York
Although Logical Lyrics officially is released in March 2005, it is actually already available online with various online booksellers like Amazon (US, UK), Barnes and Noble, etc. The list price is £9 / $15 (196 pages including table of content, preface, disclaimer, A-Z, Contributors, Index).
Over at Metatome, Adam Potthast asks, “Does anyone have any special things they do to give formal logic more take-home value?” By which he means, “how do you motivate teaching formal logic to students who aren’t math, physics or philosophy majors.” And that’s a good question. I’ve so far only tried to increase the “take-home value” of formal logic for math, CS, and philosophy students. One suggestion is to include more history of logic. That, it seems to me, is important because otherwise it’s hard for the kids to see why anyone would even want to do all this stuff with formal symbols. But I’m not sure how much this will be appreciated by the students who aren’t math, CS, or philosophy majors. Well, maybe by the philosophy majors need to be specially motivated anyway, and talking about logic and Frege and Russell, Wittgenstein and Carnap might do that. And Leibniz, of course.
I heard about this from a colleague, who played it as a kid, and then I saw it today on another colleague’s shelf, who promptly gave it to me as a gift (Thanks, Jack!). It is some kind of game with wff’s (in Polish notation), I haven’t looked at the instructions yet. I thought something this weird could not have survived on the market for long. But apparently you can still get it from www.wff-n-proof.com/ or used from Amazon etc. Does anyone still play this?