English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Færd

03:23

@Cerberus Each has its own approach and customs and concerns.

Mathematical logic models the aspect of thought that is reason, but it doesn't dissect the very elements of it, the letters of the alphabet of the language of thinking: simple predicates (or simple sentences, depending on your terminology) like Cerb is a human. You put each of these simple predicates in a box and label the boxes p1, p2, …

and jumble them up with some other signs (like ¬, ⇒, ⊥, ), etc) in a set that is “the alphabet of mathematical logic”. Then you define another set of any possible sequences of those 'letter's (which may be meaningful (¬(¬p) ⇔ p) or not (¬⇒p1p2)), and then lay axioms to define which sequence is meaningful and which is not … .

In the logical hierarchy of mathematical theories, mathematical logic is below set theory: set theory is more fundamental and elemental than mathematical logic (and any other mathematical theory), although you do use reason and human logic in set theory.

And you never open those little boxes; you never ask how they’re formed or what is it that makes one of them true or false, or what the word is really is, … or how single concepts (eg, Cerb, human, and three-headed dog) form in the mind before(?) being used in sentences, and so on.

In all these matters and more mathematical logic differs from philosophical logic. Although I think there are various theories here and I'm not very familiar with the terminology to make sure how exactly those that I have in mind relate to those that you named and discussed here. But I think the above gives a broad or vague picture at least.

tchrist

Your English is awesome.

Færd

Wow.

Thanks.

tchrist

I hope you have occasion to use this to your benefit in your professional life.

Færd

Thank you.

I consider myself far from good. I'm frequently lost for words and have various other problems ...

tchrist

Who among us is not?

Færd

03:34

Well, when I compare it to how I use my first language, I'm not very eloquent in English yet.

tchrist

To be honest, “eloquence” is a rare trait.

Færd

True.

tchrist

To some it may come as naturally as breathing, but to most of us it requires actual work if it is to come at all.

There is a vast difference between the spoken language and the written one, but many today are so unfamiliar with the latter that they remain ignorant that this distinction even exists.

Færd

Well, maybe they don't read enough. :)

I think I was very fortunate to have talk-pals like yourself who would set up the standards of the conversation high enough for me to strive to be meticulous about my English.

Chatting was very helpful in both my written and spoken language.

What with it being a hybrid of the two.

J doh

11:22

Anyone around?

I've been sent the phrase "He was reliant on me and I him."

I think it's one of those things that sounds wrong or poorly worded but is actually correct. Is it correct and if so, why and why does it sound so terrible?

Thanks

terdon

I don't see how it could possibly be correct. You are reliant on something. You can't just *reliant it.

That just looks like a typo to me.

J doh

sorry, there was a missing 'on' but my point still stands that to those less linguistically able than you lot, it feels like there should be a "and I was reliant on him". Why is it that it's not needed?

terdon

11:39

Oh, no, not at all. Just like I sang to him and he to me.

Does he gave to me and I to him sound wrong to you?

J doh

but, it 'sounds' wrong to those less linguistically able than you (who can put it into words) and me who know it sounds off but somehow thinks it's more than likely correct.

It sounds unusual but correct to me. I suspect it would be 'wrong' to a lot of English speakers.

I'm somewhere inbetween you lot and the av. speaker as in I have an interest in linguistics but not the education many of you do.

terdon

I'm no linguist, not everyone here is :)

But are you a native speaker?

I don't find this construction strange in any way. It's actually quite common. I would argue that most native speakers would use He gave to me and I to him over He gave to me and I gave to him.

Sadly, none of the linguistic heavyweights are around at the moment to deconstruct it and explain precisely to us.

Compare to, for example, I am in your debt. To me, answering and I in yours seems much more natural than and I am in your debt as well or whatever other alternative.

J doh

Ha. Yes, I flatter people when I want some help. I studied linguistics for 2 years at uni.

I don't think you find the construction strange. I find it strange but acceptable. I think you've had it educated out of you. I, somewhat!

You (and I) know that "5 items or less" or "they thumped Jim and I" is incorrect but is probably the popular construction.

Thanks for the help. I'll stay around incase the linguistic heavyweights can give me a few key words to google :)

One thing that will stay with me from my linguistic education is someone saying that "it's about the only subject that most of…

terdon

11:55

@Jdoh "they thumped Jim and I" is a lack of education parading itself as learned. Wrong any way you look at it. "5 items or less", on the other hand, seems fine to me. I think you're falling afoul of the (imaginary) "rule" about countable and non countable with less vs fewer.

77

A: "Less" vs. "fewer"

Ah, less vs. fewer. Another arrow in the prescriptivist’s quiver of pointless pedantry. There's even a Wikipedia article about the dispute. There is also a Language Log entry about the matter too. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, a usage guide that looks carefully at ...

J doh

Shit! It's imaginary?

No sarcasm intended?

terdon

None :)

Read that answer.

J doh

As always, interesting reading.

"is a lack of education parading itself as learned"

Well, that's me done then :)

terdon

Anyway, @Jdoh, the original issue of the verb being elided is basically the same construct as I am hot! So am I!. If, as I assume you do, you wouldn't prefer I am hot too over so am I, I don't see why you'd object to [. . . ] and I on him. It's the same basic idea.

J doh

That's a lovely example. Thanks

terdon

12:00

@Jdoh heh, sorry, this excessive substitution of me by I is one of my pet peeves.

Uhm. Did you just flag that as spam!?

J doh

I'm so embarrassed to say that I'd always felt the same about fewer / less.

No

Did I?

terdon

Dunno, maybe you did by accident. No worries.

@ArtOfCode all's well, nothing to see ;)

J doh

I have to go but thanks for the help.

I like the "I am hot" example.

terdon

@Jdoh I thought so too and someone confronted me with counter examples where I, personally, would use one where the "rule" would suggest I use another. It's odd when your own usage comes back to bite you.

J doh

True!

Cerberus

13:40

@Færd How do you know?

17 hours ago, by Cerberus

At my university, philosophical logic involved ordinary predicate logic, truth tables, propositional trees, and the like.

The things you described are part of philosophical logic.

I have taken courses at one university and helped someone who took them at another.

Both involved formal logic.

Mitch

14:33

@Cerberus That surprises me but am glad of it. I haven't seen the syllabus for logic as taught in philosophy in US (or anywhere) but my vague impression was different than your experience.

Cerberus

Good.

I was a bit surprised when both you and @Færd were telling me what my courses were about...

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Good morning.

Cerberus

My people have ideas about what academic philosophy is about, but which are in fact about some Buddha thing or other.

Hello!

I remember how Vitaly always inveighed against philosophy on his favourite site, where everyone hated philosophy—except that the entire site was almost 100% about philosophy, and they just didn't really want to know what actual philosophy was about.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I demand my fully-modular Ara!!

Oh, and I demand my Ryzen!

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I wish you'd gotten one.

Cerberus

Thank you.

Mitch

14:38

@Cerberus haha. yes. You really don't like champagne either. Trust me.

Cerberus

Someone should buy Ara off them.

@Mitch Umm...quoi?

Mitch

Do you like champagne?

Cerberus

Not really.

Mitch

Oh. Well...

Matt E. Эллен

@Cerberus I asked someone if they also had a graphics architecture called the Shyn, but nobody laughed :(

Mitch

14:40

well, it's good that you agree with me, otherwise you'd be wrong.

Cerberus

It's just white wine that one cannot taste as well because of the carboacids.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

I think the phone market is too stunted to allow Ara to succeed. Only Apple, Google, or Samsung are big enough to make it happen, and even then it's iffy, and Apple doesn't like stuff like that, and Samsung doesn't want to open up the market, and Google hasn't been that good at industry partnerships.

Mitch

@Cerberus Hm..you have a reason? I thought wine wine was just gross.

Cerberus

@MattE.Эллен Umm I'm afraid I don't get it!

Matt E. Эллен

rise n shine?

Mitch

14:41

hahhaha

Cerberus

Ohhh.

Haha.

@Mitch Red wine is good! If you're used to it.

Mitch

what is Ryzen?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

what's the big deal about ryzen?

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Perhaps.

AMD has been making fairly bad processors for many years now.

Mitch

@Cerberus it's OK.

Cerberus

14:42

Ryzen is their new processor that's coming.

It may change the game.

@Mitch OK.

Mitch

AMD's new processor?

Cerberus

The heart of a computer.

Made by a company called AMD.

Mitch

you mean like with electrons and things?

Cerberus

Like with electronics.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Sure but why is it exciting?

Cerberus

14:43

And things.

Mitch

probably more stuff than that.

Cerberus

Because finally Intel's semi-monopoly might be broken.

So we can have much better and cheaper processors.

Mitch

I've been unconscious to all that. I thought AMD or Infineon were reasonable competitors. What about Motorola?

Cerberus

Motorola doesn't make processors.

Mitch

I use pen and paper

Cerberus

14:44

And I'm only talking about the mid- to high-end desktop processors.

Mitch

because a pencil means you're unsure and that's for losers

Cerberus

And laptop.

Mitch

Motorola used to make processors for Apple. But I can't remember when they stopped.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mitch because Apple switched to x86

it was faster and cheaper

@Cerberus AMD's processors are pretty good.

Cerberus

That's not what I hear...

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

14:47

But yeah, I miss the days when AMD was killing it.

Cerberus

They use a lot more power for the same performance.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

The Opteron was so great

@Cerberus most people don't care

Cerberus

Oh, but they do, because it tops off maximum performance.

Too hot.

They have nothing that competes with the best Intels.

Matt E. Эллен

but the people who do care are the people the marketing dept.s are appealing too

Cerberus

That, too!

Matt E. Эллен

14:48

the people who don't care don't even care that intel has competitors

Cerberus

Thankfully.

They don't even know what Intel is.

Or competitors.

Matt E. Эллен

lol

Cerberus

Or "that".

Mitch

@MattE.Эллен Nobody cares

Matt E. Эллен

@Mitch everything is boring

Mitch

14:51

sigh

punches self in stomach

perks up

Matt E. Эллен

lol

Mitch

Wikipedia is not telling me when Apple stopped using Motorola CPUs

Damn you WP.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Apple's transition to Intel processors

Apple's Intel transition was the process of changing the central processing unit (CPU) of Macintosh computers from PowerPC processors to Intel x86 processors. The transition became public knowledge at the 2005 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), when Apple's CEO Steve Jobs made the announcement that the company would make a transition from the use of PowerPC microprocessors supplied by Freescale (formerly Motorola) and IBM in its Macintosh computers, to processors designed and manufactured by Intel, a chief supplier for most of Apple's competitors. The transition marked the Macintosh platform...

Matt E. Эллен

it would be just before it transitioned to unix based OSs

Mitch

Also, AMD is already a competitor to Intel. @Cerberus you're just hoping they'll be better competitors

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 nice

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

14:53

@MattE.Эллен after, actually

Mitch

From that it seems they spun off their CPUs into 'Freescale'

@MattE.Эллен best move ever

Matt E. Эллен

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 oh!

Mitch

well...there are probably better moves

Cerberus

@Mitch They don't have processors than can compete with the best Intels.

Mitch

like the lateral pass to edelman who then forward passed to amidola for an easy 50 yard run to a touchdown. That was fantastic!

@Cerberus Say that from your vacation house on Mars.

Matt E. Эллен

14:55

Princess Amidala was in the superbowl?

Mitch

Really.

I'd totally visit you there

Matt E. Эллен

Mars is OK to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there

Mitch

@MattE.Эллен yeah. pretty cringingly embarrassing when they're kissing and that giant capybara runs across the field of flowers and then the one interception that season, but we won by a field goal.

tchrist

@MattE.Эллен < Amygdala

Matt E. Эллен

@tchrist The centre of fear and almonds

tchrist

14:58

Anybody read Robert Macfarlane?

Cerberus

@Mitch tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

Mitch

I smell burnt toast. Anybody else?

Matt E. Эллен

not right now...

I've just had a sandwich

Mitch

There's a convenient household air-freshener that comes in burnt toast, wet dog, and stale cigar.

for that lived in feeling.

Matt E. Эллен

:D

Cerberus

15:00

And here: cpu.userbenchmark.com

The top is all Intel.

Both qua performance and qua performance:price.

Mitch

@Cerberus not to discredit that but it looks like it is benchmark tested on gaming software

which can be (as they note) dependent on the graphics subsystem

Matt E. Эллен

@tchrist I've read some Todd Macfarlane, but nothing by Robert

Cerberus

Gaming is an important aspect of what they test, yes. But they test the processor, not the video card.

Mitch

@Cerberus nice

that's default ordered by use rating, which is ... questionable.

but it seems, playing with their sorting, that intel is at the top for most of those.

Cerberus

Yes.

Mitch

15:04

@Cerberus I'm not sure one can say that. They're testing the same -software- on different setups, hopefully with only the CPU changing, but I can't tell

Cerberus

Yes, that is what they purport to do.

Mitch

(and they admit the thing about the graphics processing being confounding

Cerberus

In case you're interested, more info on why AMD's current processors are at a serious disadvantage:

reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/3zxj5z/…

Mitch

which contradicts that it is only the CPU changing

Cerberus

> AMD chips are built on an old CPU architecture, and therefore their chips suffer in the IPC department, with many of their chips having 50-60% less IPC than modern Intel chips. This means that if you have two single core chips (for simplicity's sake) and the Intel is clocked at 3 GHz, the AMD chip will have to run between 6 GHz and 6.5 GHz to compete with the Intel chip for performance.

But times may be a-changin'!

With Ryzen.

Matt E. Эллен

15:07

what are IPCs and what do they mean by performance?

Cerberus

IPC means the number of operations a CPU can do per clock cycle.

Matt E. Эллен

ah, cool

the rest makes sense

Cerberus

A 3 GHz core does 3 billion clock cycles per second, I believe.

Matt E. Эллен

yes

Cerberus

OK you knew that.

Matt E. Эллен

15:09

I used to follow this stuff, but then I guess I lost interest

Mitch

from that comparison site it looks like AMD and Nvidia compete favorably on GPUs (and Intel doesn't seem to bother)

Cerberus

I follow it around the time when I build a new computer.

Matt E. Эллен

yeah, me too.

Cerberus

Then I forget it all (not to mention that it quickly becomes obsolete).

Matt E. Эллен

@Mitch yeah, integrated graphics have never been the best

@Cerberus true. I don't upgrade nearly as often

Mitch

15:11

oops. out of a hundred, a couple intel GPU chips

Cerberus

@Mitch Yes, AMD offers serious competition in video cards (although it can't compete (yet) with the very top of the top of Nvidia's). But the new Vega architecture may also change that.

@MattE.Эллен My computer is now in it's 9th year—that is, I built it in 2008.

Matt E. Эллен

Intel sells the most graphics cards (although they're integrated into the motherboard), but they're not what enthusiasts go for

Færd

@Cerberus I didn't say those are not involved in philosophical logic. They are.

And you know about courses you took better for sure.

Cerberus

@MattE.Эллен Yeah I'm not sure I would call those 'cards'...

Matt E. Эллен

@Cerberus my desktop is younger than that (I didn't build my laptop)

but not by much

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

15:14

Oh, by the way, if anyone here liked playing Doom in the 90s, and hasn't yet played the latest Doom game from 2016, you're missing out. It's so good.

Færd

Nevertheless, philosophical and mathematical logic have each their own approach and customs and concerns.

Mitch

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 how ... different can it be? Does it make you more nauseous?

Is the maze more 3D?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mitch Well, it's a modern game with fully modern graphics and gameplay

but it's very fun

Matt E. Эллен

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I want to, but I don't want to spend money.

Mitch

Does it have a propriosensitive body suit that makes you feel like you just got shot?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

15:16

and all your fav doom monsters are back

@MattE.Эллен do you watch Humble Bundle and Steam for sales? I got mine on sale recently

Cerberus

@Færd OK I know what philosophical logic is about, but I wouldn't presume to know too much about the full range of mathematical logic. But my main point was that the basic stuff was the same.

Matt E. Эллен

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I hadn't thought of that. I always think of HB as being for games I don't want :D

Cerberus

At least at the universities I know.

@Færd I think it's really strange that you're saying that.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@MattE.Эллен Doom has been half-price there a few times. But it's priced in USD which wasn't that great a deal for me. I put it on my Steam wishlist and steam emailed me about a good sale around Christmas.

Matt E. Эллен

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 good plan

Mitch

15:17

@Cerberus Since he left I'll take over presumptuously for him.

tchrist

@MattE.Эллен amazon.com/Landmarks-Robert-Macfarlane/dp/0241967872

Cerberus

@MattE.Эллен Oohh you're using a young 'un.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Færd in my university, the logic part of the math class brought in a philosophy prof to teach it.

Cerberus

un'?

Mitch

Why do you think that is strange (that the two have different approaches?

Cerberus

15:18

@Mitch No doubt you're very good at that!

@Mitch No, it is strange to claim that they do, when you don't know.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mitch Because they're the same thing?

tchrist

@Cerberus Ynglings

Mitch

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That is very interesting.

It's like the med schools bring in the physical anthropologists to teach anatomy.

Cerberus

I'm not saying the whole logic curriculum of a BA in mathematics and a BA in philosophy are identical; just that the basic stuff is the same, i.e. formal logic.

tchrist

amazon.com/Home-Ground-Guide-American-Landscape/dp/1595341757

Mitch

15:19

You really don't expect it, but the phys anthro people really know that part well.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mitch It's logic, right? it's fundamental.

tchrist

Awfully big boxen you've got there, ma'am.

Cerberus

Too many times I have seen people think they know what academic philosophy is about.

Mitch

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 but there's culture and direction too

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

So, annoyingly, when I switch between chat rooms, the chat room always has a spam flag up but when I click it there are no flags

Cerberus

15:20

Too often they think it's Buddha or some self-help book.

tchrist

I'm frustrated by my inability to recover a link to a wonderfully extensive online glossary/lexicon/encyclopedia of landform toponyms.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I get that all the time.

Færd

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 They have approached each other as time went by, and there are people who know about both.

Mitch

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I know! I want to see what's been flagged too but it's not there when I get to it

Matt E. Эллен

@tchrist oooo

Færd

15:21

And in my university, we had seminars to discuss the similarities and dissimilarities of the two.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@tchrist Just do what Reg does: never close any tabs. The link will be there, somewhere.

Mitch

@Cerberus Or yoda.

Cerberus

@Færd I would say it is the opposite.

tchrist

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I've used it extensively and now the magic escapes me. I try to log important things I want to posteriorly recall here, but I cannot come upon it try though I may.

Cerberus

They have diverged over the centuries.

But at any rate, at my universities, the basics are the same.

Which is why I listed them specifically.

Færd

15:22

@Cerberus In some ways, yes, perhaps. But for example in form and notation and other things they have adopted stuff from each other.

Cerberus

@tchrist How do you log them?

Bookmarks? Your e-mail?

I use both.

Mitch

@Færd in a philosophical manner no doubt!

Cerberus

Because they're easy to search.

tchrist

@Cerberus I mention them in this chat in some fashion that will allow me to find them again.

Cerberus

Hah.

But this room's search absolutely sucks.

2

Mitch

15:24

yes.

Cerberus

I used to have a bookmarklet that e-mailed the entire page and its content to myself at the click of a button.

But sadly it broke.

Now I have to do it by hand, until I devise an Autohotkey script to do it.

Færd

@Mitch Yes. Kinda. Meta-logic is not mathematical logic.

tchrist

Aug 18 '12 at 1:08, by Cerberus

Geography? The English countryside?

Mitch

@Færd said that way I would disagree. meta-logic is not really a thing, but meta-mathematics, whose methods are mostly logic, is mostly mathematics

tchrist

It was during that time-frame.

snicket  dell     kyle     fold     wold     dene
dess     dub      side     dingle   graff    lough
pant     gill     garth    scree    lea      burn
dimble   firth    bink     glade    low      mere
sike     thorpe   cam      hurst    bourne   copse
wheal    midden   brim     fell     croft    porth
how      knoll    pike     hope     scaur    beck
force    cairn    vennel   strath   bache    coomb
sound    moor     kame     tor      dale     stank
thwaite  holm     voe      close    toft     frith

I compiled that list using it.

Although for that one I deliberately studded it with terms we took from Norse and Celtic sources.

Cerberus

15:27

We did this.

Færd

And one important thing is that in modern math all the branches stem from set theory one way or the other. Including mathematical logic.

tchrist

17

A: How to refer to the "elevated areas" of a mountain?

Ridge and hill seem to be the respective answers, at least according to the Army Study Guide, which uses a sketch of a human hand to identify different terrain features: They there define a hill as a point or small area of high ground. When you are on a hilltop, the ground slopes down in ...

There, too.

But nowhere can I find me my links.

Færd

@Cerberus Of course.

They have a lot in common. I'm not questioning that.

Cerberus

As I said, it is the same basic stuff.

Mitch

@Færd that's worded a little weirdly. Set theory is considered (as a thesis, not a theorem) to be a foundation of all mathematics, that is all mathematics can supposedly be reduced to set theory preserving truthhood.

Færd

15:30

@Mitch I'm not sure I got you there.

Cerberus

We also did something with numbers and sets.

And predicate logic.

With existential quantifiers and stuff.

Which I believe is the same in mathematical logic.

Færd

@Mitch Okay. That's what I meant to say.

Cerberus

My friend wrote his thesis on modal logic, I believe.

Færd

I'm not sure I can continue this meaningfully without knowing exactly with what approach you used those concepts.

tchrist

Motivation: I'm looking for more of a native English term for that angled mesopotamian tongue of land than we see with words like doab or interfluve. I know it must exist, and probably many times over.

Cerberus

15:33

@Færd I like that attitude!

Mitch

@Færd I've never heard of a formal term 'meta-logic' but if I understand what you mean figuratively about it, then it's either loose philosophical talk (not formal mathematical talk) about logic (like 'what is it good for?') or it's very formal like 'here's a theorem that shows that completeness is unprovable within formal logical systems with this logical axiom'),

Cerberus

@Mitch Again, you're presuming that philosophical language is "loose".

Not philosophical logic.

Philosophy is very broad.

Færd

@Cerberus Not at all loose.

Cerberus

It can be very formal.

As in, uh, formal logic.

@Mitch "What is it good for" is ethics, has nothing at all to do with logic, let alone formal logic in philosophy.

Mitch

@Cerberus I suppose that one could do that in a philosophy program in the US. But I would not expect someone who is attracted to philosophy would be attracted to the symbolic manipulation skills necessary for that discussion.

Cerberus

15:36

Maybe formal meta-logic is not part of the basic logic curriculum in philosophy.

@Mitch Then you are entirely mistaken, or perhaps what you say applies to your country only.

Many people get degrees in both philosophy and mathematics, especially those interested in logic.

Mitch

@Cerberus You took me too literally there. I mean 'general intellectual implications', rather than technical minutiae

Cerberus

Since that's where the two disciplines touch.

shakes heads

Mitch

@Cerberus I don't doubt it, I am being reductionistic and essentialist, and that is oversimplifying.

Færd

57

Q: Logic in mathematics and philosophy

What are the relations between logic as an area of (modern) philosophy and mathematical logic. The world "modern" refers to 20th century and later, and I am curious mainly about the second half of the 20th century. Background and motivation Logic is an ancient area of philosophy which, while ...

Cerberus

@Mitch I think it is more than that.

There are different schools in academic philosophy, and many different sub-fields.

What you are thinking of applies only to a few of those.

Mitch

15:39

It's simple: logic as an area of philosophy is a hand waving aimed at misunderstanding mathematical logic... (just kidding, but not too much) — Qfwfq Apr 20 '11 at 12:24

hahah

Cerberus

That's the same silly ignorance.

People who don't really want to know what academic philosophy is like.

Just want to have opinions about it.

Færd

I like this from the first answer:

> If I had to summarize in one sentence, I would say that mathematical logic is the subfield of philosophical logic devoted to logical systems that have been sufficiently formalized to admit mathematical study.

And this from the second answer (Which is what I said in the first place about those little boxes in other words.):

> The fake philosophical terminology of mathematical logic has misled philosophers into believing that mathematical logic deals with the truth in the philosophical sense. But this is a mistake. Mathematical logic deals not with the truth, but with the game of truth.

Mitch

@Færd that's a good thread. answered/discussed by mathematicians. I couldn't expect a similar depth of investigation on the philosophy.SE site.

Færd

I have too little experience in either to be able to compare them. Mayhaps.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Færd Citation needed on the "misled philosophers" part. I'm pretty sure philosophers are capable of playing thought games like abstract logic.

Cerberus

15:45

@Færd Yes, that is adequate, as far as I can judge mathematical logic.

@Færd That sounds like nonsense.

Færd

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Maybe a bit biased against philosophy. Neglect that part.

Cerberus

Some philosophy is in my humble opinion apparent nonsense, I will gladly admit that (as to whether it is actual nonsense, I am not sure).

Mitch

@Færd It's unfair in some sense. different cultures. MathOverflow is entirely populated by professional academics discussing real research topics at the forefront of mathematics. Phil.SE is ... amateur/undergrad

Cerberus

@Færd Not so much biased as partly meaningless without clear definitions.

Færd

In mathematical logic you don't go deeper than simple predicates. You don't dissect them. You don't explore the meaning of truth inside them.

You take them as elements of your theory, and, in a sense, play with them.

Cerberus

15:48

@Mitch Or, rather, most people on SE sites are interested in coding and computers and have not studied academic philosophy. But the subject is (or seems) accessible, so you will find many amateurs on Phil.SE. The converse does not apply to Mathoverflow.

Mitch

@Cerberus That quote is answering from an entirely different direction. GCR is a mathematician who eventually turned to do philosophy too (not easy or common). so he was being a mathematician insider complaining about other mathematicians' use of pseudo-philosophical jargon

Cerberus

@Færd The same applies to basic logic in philosophy.

Again, you seem to be assuming things.

Or perhaps it is different at your university.

Færd

@Cerberus Not in the course I had. See the attitude works?

Cerberus

We had to analyse and transcribe predicate logic like "some triangles are square" (except much more complicated, of course).

Mitch

@Cerberus yes, phil.SE is accessibile, MO is not

Cerberus

15:50

@Færd I believe it!

Færd

:)

Cerberus

As to whether triangles could be square, that was irrelevant, because it was logic.

Courses in argumentative studies, as it was called, were a different matter.

But I am repeating myself.

Færd

And for another example to show how they differ in approach, take this question:

41

Q: "If everyone in front of you is bald, then you're bald." Does this logically mean that the first person is bald?

Suppose we have a line of people that starts with person #1 and goes for a (finite or infinite) number of people behind him/her, and this property holds for every person in the line: If everyone in front of you is bald, then you are bald. Without further assumptions, does this mean that t...

logic predicate-logic quantifiers

In math and in mathematical logic the truth value for those statements are defined.

(Although mathematicians may not be very glad to readily admit that)

But not in philosophical logic. It's discussed, and evaluated, in this case as null.

Mitch

The current trend is that PhDs in logic (from a mathematics department) are not being hired by mathematics departments, but instead by CS or by philosophy. CS makes sense, but philosophy does not, not nowadays. The entrance requirements to philosophy programs tends to weed out grad students who would pursue graduate careers in symbolic logic (i.e. a humanities background is more prized than a science one). Of course there are always polymaths.

Matt E. Эллен

@Cerberus are you repeating yourself?

Cerberus

15:54

@Færd No?

That question is just like the stuff we did.

Færd

> Generally, for a statement that consists of a subject and a predicate, if the subject doesn't exist, then does the statement have a truth value?

Cerberus

Perhaps choosing how to transcribe natural language into formal logic is not formal logic itself.

Færd

Answer:

- Mathematical logic: yes!

Cerberus

Logic: yes.

Færd

- Philosophical logic: ambiguous.

Cerberus

15:56

That's basic truth tables.

No, it was true for us too.

Færd

There are tons of approaches.

Cerberus

I don't remember the exact reasoning behind it, but that reasoning itself was not was of formal logic (how could it be? It's not formal).

@Færd Yes, but not in formal logic in philosophy.

You have to make a choice and apply it, then begin your formal logic.

The choice itself is not part of formal logic.

Færd

Where is the choice made? In what theory?

Cerberus

Somewhere that's not formal logic?

Færd

If we call that philosophical logic, then my case is settled.

Cerberus

15:59

If p, then q. Not p. Q.

Truth value of the whole: true.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…