But unfortunately, in the other versions of while-language, instructions are even more restricted, so we can’t immediately get the result above. The status of propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation (i.e. Lemmon’s “Beginning Logic”: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/606295.Beginning_Logic. Is there any good reason (as someone who isn’t at the moment a Github user) why I should do? I wanted to ask if you could recommend any book that takes a top-down approach to logic, starting with the greatest generality possible and only once those foundations are rigorously established moving on to more specific and applicable material. I moved according to your list in the logic study program and almost i read all books mentioned till i got to chapter 4.1 Thanks! I’d be happy to find a book on computability theory that has a similar macro-level structure. I’m vary flexible on the requirement that it should be possible to read it as a textbook (“possible” is the key word here). And it would be a good addition to the Guide to add indications of which books have (some) answers to exercises. Do you have an opinion on the online introduction to logic course offered by Stanford? That strikes me still as about right: a good supplement, but not the best starting point. As the guide is made towards people studying logics for the purposes of both mathematics and philosophy, why not suggest Susan Haack’s Philosophy of Logics? When in that case? If so, what are your thoughts on it? (I notice, though, that there are logical systems that don’t have at least one of the monotonicity and transitivity conditions which Meseguer requires. NB: mathematical logic — so we are working a step up from the kind of ‘baby logic’ that philosophers may encounter in their first year courses. Try it out here: If the Guide’s length makes it sound daunting, there are also some supplementary webpages which might help ease your way in: It goes without saying, of course, that all constructive comments and suggestions continue to be most warmly welcomed. Kneebones’ ‘Mathematical Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics’ (with S.T. Wilfrid Hodges’ «Logic», and You can also find here some supplements and further Book Notes of various kinds. That’s a good question. 1 – I like that graph/ illustration for the cover page – is there any hidden meanings /logical truths or allusions behind it? I think the source is an University in Israel but I cannot read Hebrew so beats me. Thanks for the wonderful guide! The statement in an argument for which support is provided by the premises. The paper “General Logics” from Prof. Meseguer, freely available at “https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs522/sp2016/GeneralLogics.pdf”, gave me the hope that similar approaches might have been taken elsewhere as well, and that over the 30 years since the paper’s publication they might have been reconciled in a comprehensive treatise. In fact, I’d say it fills a major gap in the community and is a vastly more detailed approach to the proof theory of substructural logics — and maybe even proof theory generally — than Restall’s text (which I keep coming back to, it is an amazing book). Please take a look at them. The paper itself takes a category-theoretical view and introduces institutions, entailment systems, and of course logics, in awe-inspiring generality. First of all appreciate the effort by you professor Smith for the guide.specially for students like me who were contacting all the professors around the best philosophy departments.but they accomplish nothing except empty answers.i wanted to say the be sure the guide won’t be pointless and students like me (which live in countries without any mathmatical logic fields presented in the universities)will try enlighten and broaden their understanding by the use of it . Would be grateful for any other suggestions you can throw out. A deductive argument that is either not valid or has false premises. Most philosophy departments, and many maths departments too, teach little or no serious logic, despite the centrality of the subject. if the exposition is a bit rough. The best comparison is probably Jech’s 2003 “Set theory”, which I used (two thirds of) to learn some set theory. I plan to start reading it soon. Getting started with Logical Reasoning. To ensure the best experience, please update your browser. The latter two both introduce axioms early and don’t develop a lot of what you might call the ordinary mathematics of sets; in Dasgupta you get much more set-theory-for-mathematicians and the axiomatic approach comes much later. With deep gratitude for your time, I don’t know the book, so can’t comment, sorry! Well, I haven’t. One thing I should add to TYL is more explicit detail on when and where books have answers to exercises: good point. But I have had other recommendations, so perhaps I should take another look! No gallery going, so been reading both books on particular artists and more general art history recently. In the past, I did take a quick look at this, but obviously wasn’t enthused enough to recommend it in TYL. I’m wondering if you’re aware of anything comparable in other areas of mathematics, particularly probability and statistics? I would like to know what you think of Paul Tomassi’s ‘Logic’? in any case, Wardlaw - Contemporary Nutrition - 9e, ISBN 0073402540 Restarting BITS is useless. Required fields are marked *. self-contradictions). Some 50 years ago I learned a lot of (the Dutch translation of) J.E. I’ll hope to comment on a few of these in the next edition of TYL. Keep up the good work, you’re actually helping people out there! An inductive argument that is either not strong or does not have true premises. Steve. But Copi is at a more elementary level than the Guide is dealing with. Thanks for your help. ISBN-13: 978-0495504153. Daniel Cohen’s ‘Computability and Logic’ is quite interesting. Graded online quizzes are also available, on request. This looks very interesting and I want to start but I didn’t study philosophy at an undergraduate level at all. I would avoid repeating the experience. Big thanks Professor. I ought to do so again one day! I once read a book by Kfoury, Moll, Arbib, using the so called ‘while-language’ as the model of computation. Thanks for your help! By that point sales will usually be low, so neither press nor author will lose much, but the book can gain a new lease of life. Philosophy: Intro to Logic Exam 1 study guide by superrnikkii includes 37 questions covering vocabulary, terms and more. Thanks. Is this guide recommended for a complete amateur? I did take a look at Cunningham’s book when it came out, but wasn’t immediately excited. :) Yes … eventually. I do recall Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Methods by Hans Bandemer and Siegfried Gottwald seemed helpful at its level. Pingback: Reading list | Axiomatized Intuition. I was heavily traumatized in my school years by the Gindikin’s book on the algebraic logic, which I was trying to learn the logic from. I got this book and I wonder if there is something interesting about it. An inductive argument that is both strong and has all true premises. Have you every considered putting this study guide on Github in Markdown? A deductive argument that is both valid and has all true premises. Thank you so much for putting this online! This is a very good question to raise. Alice Ambrose and Morris Lazerowitz’s «Logic: the theory of formal inference». Learning mathematical logic involves a serious time commitment, and different people have different backgrounds/requirements, so you’ll want detailed advice from which you can work out which books might be suitable for you. I am not a philosopher with no academic prospects whatsoever but I am interested in formal logic and this exactly what I have been looking for!