Timeline for "Introduction to mathematical logic" book from a formalist perspective
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jan 26, 2014 at 12:15 | comment | added | user43263 | @MonroeEskew You're probably right...this together with Timothy Chows answer convinced me that I probably should reevaluate me needs...(though I still think that in the end I will appreciate books with a formalist bent most) | |
| Jan 26, 2014 at 10:55 | vote | accept | user43263 | ||
| Jan 26, 2014 at 5:30 | comment | added | Monroe Eskew | What you need is simply logical maturity. Perhaps this is best attained through a text which goes through many details, like Enderton's intro logic book. In the end, it is not necessary, and in my opinion actually very inefficient, for an author to constantly hew towards a formalist view. Casual platonism (which you can eventually read as noncommittal) is far more effective at communicating genuine mathematical ideas. Once you have attained logical maturity, you can read mathematics and interpret it according to whatever philosophical leanings you are drawn towards. | |
| Jan 26, 2014 at 4:32 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 21:53 | comment | added | user43263 | @NikWeaver I'd be very happy if you could send me the proofs as it seems that the book can't be shipped yet to my country. I sent you an email to the address from your website to which you've linked in your profile, so you have my email now. Thank you very much! | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 20:09 | comment | added | Nik Weaver | You can already find my book on Amazon, or if you give me an email address I'd be happy to send you the proofs. By the way, I also agree with the recommendation to at least have a look at Kleene --- there's really a lot of good stuff there. | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 20:07 | comment | added | Nik Weaver | I just remember struggling with these issues when I was a student. At the end of such a struggle, you say to yourself, "I wish this had been explained in such-and-such a way" ... and at some point you may find that you're in a position to write a book that does just that. | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 19:59 | comment | added | user43263 | @AndresCaicedo Thanks, I will look them up! (Are you sure though that "reading the masters" is a good idea ? Until now in every other area of maths that I know of, people rather recommend to not read the older, original expositions since the notation is very difficult/outdated.) | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 19:58 | comment | added | user43263 | @NikWeaver You cannot imagine how good it feels to me that I'm not the only one who takes issue with this problem - and that it's not just a student but an established mathematician who shares the same discomfort is especially comforting! (Because where I'm located nobody else has the qualms I have and I started to develop a feeling that all people who are working in the field are at leisure with this.) I'm looking very much forward to your book. To you have an approximate plan, when it's going to be published ? | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 19:11 | comment | added | Nik Weaver | I know this isn't what you're asking, but it seems related: in my forthcoming book Forcing for Mathematicians I try to draw a clear distinction between the target theory (ZFC) and the metatheory in which consistency and independence results are proven (which I take to be PA). I share your discomfort with expositions which fail to make this crystal clear at the outset. | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:48 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | The "real" natural numbers are exactly the numbers of the metatheory... Separately, if you do look at Kleene's book mentioned by Andres Caicedo, you will see a reason why few textbooks are written in that extremely formal style. | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:42 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | I would suggest to take a look at both Kleene's Introduction to Metamathematics, and Hilbert and Ackermann's Principles of mathematical logic. | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:34 | answer | added | Burak | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:29 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:27 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 26, 2014 at 5:53 | |||||
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:27 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:02 | history | edited | Ricardo Andrade | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected tag; fixed spelling errors
|
| Jan 25, 2014 at 17:00 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jan 25, 2014 at 15:53 | history | edited | user43263 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 156 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2014 at 15:35 | history | asked | user43263 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |