it's world logic day!
Locked
12
12
 
|
By my internal model of Nick, I would guess that he is referring to Peirce.
Though it is funny to imagine that logic has done nothing of consequence since 1914, that no other thinkers have come along and moved the subject forward, and that logicians still simply practice the subject from within some century-old framework. Perhaps I am wrong and he would cite Lawvere, Eilenberg, Kripke, Girard, Curry, Church, Per Martin-Löf, or ... -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4
Well, computation is a direct descendant of logic. And "mathematical logic" is a bit of an offshoot related to the foundations of math. Things like modus ponens are simply mechanical/effective transformations. You can build any logic you want by removing or adding the operations from some formal system. For example, the tonk operation is interesting: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30226839?seq=1
Add to the above the idea that *informal* logic is still logic, but without the mechanical/effective aspect and you get closer to logic writ large, perhaps as Nick might use the term. The informal fallacies can be thought of as heuristic principles of good thinking. The important inferential leap is that *any* of the elements of any logic (formal or informal) are doubtable. So, it's reasonable to throw out, say, modus tollens, as is done in some paraconsistent logics. And it's reasonable to replace consequence with, say, "possible" and "necessary", as in modal logic, or "am" vs. "will be", as in temporal logic. So, the essence of logic, as I see it anyway, is that *mechanical* inference ... the thing that carries us from Ramon Lull all the way to, say, Isabelle <https://isabelle.in.tum.de/>. On 1/14/21 4:57 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote: > I would have thought that most members of FRIAM, when speaking of logic, are referring to the mathematical and/or computational concept of propositional logic, which has little if anything to do with a human dimension. You know, modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. Logic in that sense would exist even without the existence of biological beings (e.g. Homo sapiens) that use it as a part (not the only part) of their thinking process. But maybe I'm not grokking what y'all are talking about. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
I don't mean to derail here, but I would love to see an analysis of the tonk
operator as a terminal object in an additive category. It seems like it's function is a lot like the zero vector space or the trivial group in a category with exact sequences. Idk. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Jon,
Thou mockest me. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 8:18 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] it's world logic day! By my internal model of Nick, I would guess that he is referring to Peirce. Though it is funny to imagine that logic has done nothing of consequence since 1914, that no other thinkers have come along and moved the subject forward, and that logicians still simply practice the subject from within some century-old framework. Perhaps I am wrong and he would cite Lawvere, Eilenberg, Kripke, Girard, Curry, Church, Per Martin-Löf, or ... -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Not sure why I keep picking my bruised and batter body up from that mat you have all put me on.
But, yes, it's Peirce I was thinking of. The quick and dirty heuristics, which cognitive scientists taught me were illogical but useful, Peirce understood as valid probabilistic logic. Perhaps I will stop talking, now. Nick Nicholas Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 8:23 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] it's world logic day! Well, computation is a direct descendant of logic. And "mathematical logic" is a bit of an offshoot related to the foundations of math. Things like modus ponens are simply mechanical/effective transformations. You can build any logic you want by removing or adding the operations from some formal system. For example, the tonk operation is interesting: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30226839?seq=1 Add to the above the idea that *informal* logic is still logic, but without the mechanical/effective aspect and you get closer to logic writ large, perhaps as Nick might use the term. The informal fallacies can be thought of as heuristic principles of good thinking. The important inferential leap is that *any* of the elements of any logic (formal or informal) are doubtable. So, it's reasonable to throw out, say, modus tollens, as is done in some paraconsistent logics. And it's reasonable to replace consequence with, say, "possible" and "necessary", as in modal logic, or "am" vs. "will be", as in temporal logic. So, the essence of logic, as I see it anyway, is that *mechanical* inference ... the thing that carries us from Ramon Lull all the way to, say, Isabelle <https://isabelle.in.tum.de/>. On 1/14/21 4:57 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote: > I would have thought that most members of FRIAM, when speaking of logic, are referring to the mathematical and/or computational concept of propositional logic, which has little if anything to do with a human dimension. You know, modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. Logic in that sense would exist even without the existence of biological beings (e.g. Homo sapiens) that use it as a part (not the only part) of their thinking process. But maybe I'm not grokking what y'all are talking about. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Hopefully in the most loving way. I very much admire the dedication of a
focused scholar, but I also enjoy poking a little fun at inevitable myopia. Chandrasekar likely feels like you do about Newton, but that wouldn't stop me from giggling when he speaks of Newton as the foremost Physicist. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |