So the colloquium honoring the recipients of the Gödel Research Fellowships is tomorrow. There should be a live feed. It starts at 9:00 CDT (that’s midnight tonight on the West Coast, and 3 am Eastern). I’ll try to find out if the lectures will be archived.
Erich Reck‘s entry on Richard Dedekind in the SEP is now online. I’m particularly happy about this one: It’s time Dedekind gets some of the attention for his philosophy of math that Frege’s been getting for his, and Erich’s entry as well as his other work, I hope, will help bring that about.
While many of Dedekind’s contributions to mathematics and its foundations are thus common knowledge, they are seldom discussed together. In particular, his mathematical writings are often treated separately from his foundational ones. This entry provides a broad survey of his contributions. The main focus will be on his foundational writings, but they will be related to his other mathematical work. Indeed, it will be argued that foundational concerns are at play throughout Dedekind’s work, so that any attempt to distinguish sharply between his “mathematical” and “foundational” writings is artificial and misleading. Another goal of the entry is to establish the continuing relevance of his contributions to the philosophy of mathematics. Indeed, their full significance has only started to be recognized, as should become evident along the way. This is especially so with respect to methodological and epistemological aspects of Dedekind’s work, which shape and ground the logical and metaphysical views that emerge in his writings.
I also recommend: “Dedekind’s Structuralism: An Interpretation and Partial Defense”, Synthese 137:3, 2003, pp. 369-419 (paper)
Two more new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of interest to logicians:
From Jan’s entry I see that his translation of the interesting third chapter of Genzen’s thesis–wherein Gentzen proved normalization of natural deduction derivations–is out in the next issue of the Bulletin.
I am in favor of
There’s a very laudable enterprise: Blogging on Pseudoscience (at BPSDB.org) aggregates blog posts debunking or pointing out pseudo-scientific nonsense such as Intelligent Design. Lots of good stuff, PZ Meyers is part of it, etc. But, look at the logo they use:
Yes, that’s a sequent calculus for linear logic. I know Girard has an idiosyncratic style, and that ludics paper may look a bit hokey. Probably only Girard can get a logic paper published in a respectable journal which contains quotes like this:
Jurassic logic keeps celebrating the wedding of Semantics and Syntax through the intercession of the Holy Meta, and, of course, every ritual deserves its own mockery, the Cross upside down, the Gospel in reverse order… In paralogics, there is no syntax, no semantics (or, better, the semantics is called syntax and vice versa). These mockeries, religious or logical, betray a paradoxical respect for a tradition that the protagonists never understood.
as well as pictures of skunks:
I mean, those two appendices are weird. But the proof theory is ok, isn’t it? And there’s nothing wrong with linear logic, is there?
New SEP entry on Definitions by Anil Gupta.
- David Fernández Duque (Stanford): Non-deterministic semantics for dynamic topological logic
- Pavel Hrubeš (Czech Academy of Sciences): On lengths of proofs in non-classical logics
- Andrey Bovykin (Steklov/Liverpool): Independence results in concrete mathematics
- Peter Koellner (Harvard): On reflection principles
- Thierry Coquand (Göteborg): Space of valuations
All great logicians, with great projects. Congratulations!
All applicants submitted papers on their research projects. Papers by the winners (and the finalists) will shortly appear in a special issue of the Annals. There will be a colloquium honoring the winners on April 27 (the eve of Kurtele’s 101st birthday)
Hi, I promise to post something logic-related very soon. In the meantime, please enjoy this funny video:
Please look in the mirror before you open your car door!