Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:



Register | Forgot Password

The disparity between Elementary Logic and Methods of Logic

printPrint


The disparity between Elementary Logic and Methods of Logic
nspeds
Nozickean
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
Location: The Noumenal Realm
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194
Posted 06/10/05 - 07:30 AM:
Subject: The disparity between Elementary Logic and Methods of Logic
quote post
#1
I purchased "Elementary Logic" and "Methods of Logic" by W.V.O. Quine. I initially began reading the former text, but was immediately puzzled because Quine chooses to express the conditional as ~(p*~q) - using only conjunction and denial - and expresses the disjunction as ~(~p*~q), again using only conjunction and denial. As I proceeded, somewhat confused over his choice, it became increasingly complicated to use these manners of expression in the exercises.

During a break, I took a cursory glance at "Methods of Logic" only to notice that Quine adopted the conventional (or modern?) symbols of '->' for conjunctions and the 'down arrow' for disjunctions.
'
What is the reason for this discrepancy? Do I benefit by skipping 'Elementary Logic' altogether and working on 'Methods of Logic'? I have already taken an introductory course to logic, so I am familiar with the basics.

Online Journal
nspeds
Nozickean
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
Location: The Noumenal Realm
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194
Posted 06/10/05 - 07:32 AM:
quote post
#2
Sorry, Quine adopts the modern symbol of -> for conditionals, not conjunctions.

Online Journal
muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1880
Posted 06/10/05 - 10:45 PM:
quote post
#3
It is easier to start with a smaller language and then define the other operators in terms of other ones (by equivalences).

Also your eye will get used to seeing ~(p & ~q) as p -> q and likewise for disjunction. If you are doing exercises yourself, just use the notation you feel most comfortable with--it doesn't matter. Just be glad he isn't solely using the Scheffer stroke.
sweetiepie
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2
Posted 06/25/05 - 12:27 AM:
quote post
#4
regarding anything academic, the more you can skip, the more you should skip.

If i were you, i would just check to make sure your books eventually get to Godel's incompleteness theorem, since, imo, that's the best part.

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1880
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 06/25/05 - 03:19 AM:

quote post
#5
sweetiepie wrote:
regarding anything academic, the more you can skip, the more you should skip.

If i were you, i would just check to make sure your books eventually get to Godel's incompleteness theorem, since, imo, that's the best part.



What?! That advice is on a par with telling someone to go play in traffic.

Don't skip anything, if you have the time, because you'll pick up stuff you either missed in another presentation of the material or it might be a different approach to said material. Also, Godel's theorems can be proved in numerous ways and if you learn one way, you have not learned them all. It's interesting to see the various different but equivalent proofs. (E.g. Kripke gives a proof using algebraic techniques and something like game-theoretical semantics which is presented by Putnam in a Notre Dame Journal of Formal LOgic article here http://projecteuclid.org/Dienst/UI/1.0/Summarize/...)

It's also a good refresher especially since you're not an expert in the field. (Even experts cite introductory texts, and often.)
Download thread as


You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

21 total queries
This page was created in 0.42 seconds
Memory used: 10683312 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 11 days, 3:37, load average: 0.33, 0.43, 0.33