A fun book, I especially like the bits about "Mr Venn's Method of Diagrams". Some of the examples are a bit questionable to a modern eye though, like the one with "No Jew is ever a bad hand at a bargain" as a premise.
Symbolic Logic (1897)
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: Symbolic Logic (1897)
#22Warning: there are Blatantly racist examples in it.
Re: Symbolic Logic (1897)
#23I'm currently reading up on formal logic in order to fully understand Probability Theory by E. T. Jaynes [1] and I've found it difficult to find a good logic book. There's a thousand on Amazon and it's hard to tell which ones are written a century ago w/ re-released dates with old notation or missing some new ideas. An "original publishing" data feature on Amazon would be a godsend. I've seen a few well reviewed Symb…
As a mathematician, I find this surprising - formal logic and probability theory don't usually have much to do with each other. Is the issue that you have trouble with formal mathematical notation?
This reminds me of my wish to see a unified theory (and notation) that encompasses formal logic and probability. On their own, each is lacking. A unified system, for example, in which we have all the tools of first order logic and Bayesian probability would be very powerful.
Re: Symbolic Logic (1897)
#24I'm currently reading up on formal logic in order to fully understand Probability Theory by E. T. Jaynes [1] and I've found it difficult to find a good logic book. There's a thousand on Amazon and it's hard to tell which ones are written a century ago w/ re-released dates with old notation or missing some new ideas. An "original publishing" data feature on Amazon would be a godsend. I've seen a few well reviewed Symb…
I second the recommendation of checking the Teach Yourself Logic guides by Peter Smith, but I will give some more specific recommendations: - Greg Restall - Logic (and he also gives some recommendations of his own that are worth checking out). If you use this, check the errata in Restall's website. - Richard Jeffrey - Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits (Smith has a textbook that is modelled largely after this, but Je…
Thanks, I wasn't familiar with the "Teach Yourself" series, that's going to help me on my path learning math/stats/probability theory.
Re: Symbolic Logic (1897)
#25I'm currently reading up on formal logic in order to fully understand Probability Theory by E. T. Jaynes [1] and I've found it difficult to find a good logic book. There's a thousand on Amazon and it's hard to tell which ones are written a century ago w/ re-released dates with old notation or missing some new ideas. An "original publishing" data feature on Amazon would be a godsend. I've seen a few well reviewed Symb…
As a mathematician, I find this surprising - formal logic and probability theory don't usually have much to do with each other. Is the issue that you have trouble with formal mathematical notation?
If you look at the probability book I mentioned it uses an algebraic boolean logic notation and basic set theory to build a formal theory of inference. The first chapter is an condensed introduction to the formal logic and notation used - which is what I was struggling with following some of the more complex equations.
Having read half a book on logic and subsequently learned basic set theory has already helped read the first portion of the probability book. But then I also got really into formal logic, I found it really fascinating as a programmer and I think every person should learn it (with plenty of applications to regular life), so I decided to take a deep dive into it. The venn diagrams visualizations are what helped me the most.
I think one of things that held me back initially was my background as a programmer, it made reading the logic set notation challenging, ie the plus signs meaning disjunctions and primes negation conjunctions.
Re: Symbolic Logic (1897)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a mathematician, I find this surprising - formal logic and probability theory don't usually have much to do with each other. Is the issue that you have trouble with formal mathematical notation?
If you look at the probability book I mentioned it uses an algebraic boolean logic notation and basic set theory to build a formal theory of inference. The first chapter is an condensed introduction to the formal logic and notation used - which is what I was struggling with following some of the more complex equations. Having read half a book on logic and subsequently learned basic set theory has already helped read…
Ah, I see. That's interesting, I'll see if I can find a bootleg copy and have a read =). Logic is a beautiful, deep subject - all the best with your studies!
Re: Symbolic Logic (1897)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at the probability book I mentioned it uses an algebraic boolean logic notation and basic set theory to build a formal theory of inference. The first chapter is an condensed introduction to the formal logic and notation used - which is what I was struggling with following some of the more complex equations. Having read half a book on logic and subsequently learned basic set theory has already helped read…
Ah, I see. That's interesting, I'll see if I can find a bootleg copy and have a read =). Logic is a beautiful, deep subject - all the best with your studies!
Here's the first 3x chapters, which I presume was for some course:
https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf
I've heard amazing things about it and it hasn't yet disappointed (the little I've read). Worth the $60 I spent on Abebooks for it (used) but the full copy is also on ThePirateBay if you want to see a longer preview.
Re: Symbolic Logic (1897)
#28Gutenberg.org is just so unreadable. It’s a damn shame that the classics of the ages are hidden on a website no one would choose to read on. Why is there no Penguin Books for the web?
I think what you're looking for is Standard Ebooks: https://standardebooks.org/ They don't have Symbolic Logic , though.
I produce SE books, I’ll add it to my list.