
I deduce you are studying logic - akakievich
https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/i-deduce-you-are-studying-logic/
======
powrtoch
You're studying the tautologic that you're studying

Sickeningly, you're studying illogic

You're a circular logician because you're studying circular logic. You're
studying circular logic because you're a circular logician.

I realized you'd been studying fridge logic

~~~
JadeNB
> I realized you'd been studying fridge logic

If it's appropriate to make a joke, then hopefully it's appropriate to admit
not to getting it; and this one defeats me.

~~~
vadskye
It's a reference to this:
[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic)

~~~
ableal
Thanks, that clears it up. Weird that they didn't put in a reference to close
kin 'staircase wit':
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier)

------
dang
Bill Wadge is the co-designer of Lucid, the classic dataflow language that
Alan Kay, among others, has praised. Lucid seems due for a revival, if not for
widespread use, at least for relearning its core ideas.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2714745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2714745)

~~~
yvdriess
Lucid was called a dataflow language at one point, but is more accurately an
'eduction' language. The key difference is that Lucid relies on demand-driven
evaluation, wheras dataflow semantics entirely relies on the more push-based
semantics of data becoming available to fire an operation. I suppose you could
call it 'tagged-token demand-driven dataflow', but its semantics are much
different from other dataflow languages such as SISAL, VAL or Id.

[https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/lucid-
eduction/](https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/lucid-eduction/)

------
credit_guy
Prior to meeting you I wasn't too sure, but after our last few conversations I
became more and more convinced you study Bayesian statistics.

------
PeterWhittaker
At first I found this sort of quirky and cool. By the time I got to the end it
was full on laughing-out-loud. This is pretty darned funny....

------
logicallee
Studying mathematical logic is tough on your social life: you're either
missing out or failing.*

* Goedel incompleteness theorem

------
ttctciyf
Since you _are_ a student of logic, but you're _not_ studying logic, I deduce
that you are and aren't studying _paraconsistent_ logic

(No, really! See: [http://www.iep.utm.edu/para-
log/](http://www.iep.utm.edu/para-log/) )

------
bgun
It would be interesting to see these phrases translated into other languages.
Greek, for one, or an analytic language such as Mandarin. Is it possible for
the sentences to still make sense, or even retain the humor?

~~~
sebdesign
Συμπεραίνω πως σπουδάζεις λογική. Πιστεύω πως σπουδάζεις δοξαστική λογική.
Γνωρίζω πως σπουδάζεις γνωσιολογική λογική. Υπάρχει πιθανότητα να σπουδάζεις
πιθανοθεωρητική λογική. Έχεις σπουδάσει χρονική λογική. Κατά 73% σπουδάζεις
ασαφή λογική. Σπουδάζεις παρασυνεπή λογική και δε σπουδάζεις παρασυνεπή
λογική. Είναι πιθανό πως σπουδάζεις τροπική λογική. Πιθανόν ίσως μπορεί να
σπουδάζεις πολυτροπική λογική. Δεν δεν σπουδάζεις διαισθητική λογική.
Σπουδάζεις γραμμική λογική, σπουδάζεις γραμμική λογική. Παρατήρησα πως
σπουδάζεις κβαντική λογική. Έχω αδιάσειστα στοιχεία πως σπουδάζεις
εποικοδομητική λογική. Ένα από τα πράγματα που κάνεις είναι σπουδές λογική
δευτέρου βαθμού. (συνδιαστική λογική) σπουδάζεις. Φαίνεσαι προβληματισμένος,
μάλλον σπουδάζεις απαγωγική λογική. Σπουδάζεις και το αντικείμενο είναι
μοναδική λογική. Το αρνείσαι, αλλά λέω πως σπουδάζεις διαλεκτική λογική.

------
JadeNB
I'm not sure which way the comments went, but there are some that appear both
here and there. One doesn't seem to have popped up here, but is so good that I
must repeat it (it's not mine!):

> That thing that you are studying… we call it denotational logic. > \- JoshH
> ([https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/i-deduce-you-
> are-...](https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/i-deduce-you-are-
> studying-logic/#comment-173))

------
dvt
Here's a few off the top of my head :)

\- I'm studying logic and I'm not studying logic. Boom. [1]

\- Since my logic has one more element than your logic, I'm studying second-
order logic. [2]

\- You're studying non-monotonic logic, but I could be wrong. [3]

[1] Principle of Explosion.

[2] Unbounded counting can't be expressed in first-order logics.

[3] [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-
nonmonotonic/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-nonmonotonic/)

------
danielam
The sort of logic you are studying is order-sorted logic, which is a sort of
first-order logic with predicates.

------
pavlov
You are studying science fiction logic aboard a spaceship moving at warp
speed, with a clone of yourself who looks like you yet was born yesterday, but
both of you are having some trouble concentrating because your faster-than-
light vessel is getting hit by laser bolts fired by humanoid aliens.

------
1hackaday
Is there a good book that surveys most of the logics mentioned in the
articile? I only know of books that go deep in one or two of these logics
(e.g., predicate calculus, fuzzy logic), but haven't seen a resource that
surveys all (or a good number) of them. Any recommendations?

~~~
zeckalpha
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
[http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic](http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic)

------
hyperion2010
You cannot study this kind of logic.

~~~
elektromekatron
I think Godel may have disproved you on that.

~~~
hyperion2010
Pretty sure the incompleteness theorem doesn't enable one to study things one
cannot study. (eg imagine a logic for which one could not write down the
axioms but was nonetheless 'consistent' by some external measure)

~~~
elektromekatron
Yeah, but you made a statement about the kind of logic you cannot study, so we
can begin by formalizing that.

~~~
hyperion2010
I suppose an easy way out is to show that such a thing cannot exist in the way
that other mathematical structures exist, trivially showing that you have
studied all of it that there is(n't) to study.

------
tel
Perhaps "Given what I've seen you up to, I can personally grasp that you're
studying intuitionistic logic.".

~~~
klodolph
Or, "I can prove that you are studying intuitionistic logic."

------
noobie
Man, half of these left me laughing but the other half flew pass my head.

Are there any good resources on logic?

~~~
danharaj
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; this article is a perfect start:
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-
classical/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/)

Of course, this is extremely dense! A book that covers this article in a
pedagogical and beautiful manner is A Mathematical Introduction to Logic by
Enderton.

But still, this is all formal logic. It lies at the locus of many disciplines
and ways of thinking, and there are many, many formal logics to explore. It is
the idea of formal logic which is important, and the SEP is a good place to
put it in context.

~~~
darkmighty
Well that's just classical logic, which is pretty much what you expect when
you hear the word logic ('False AND True = False', etc) the other ones were
developed to address it's shortcomings and paradoxes.

[http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic](http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Logic)

~~~
danharaj
Of course, but the most well developed theory pedagogically and theoretically
is first order classical logic. So, it's the best place to learn all of the
standard concepts like derivability, completeness and soundness theorems, and
all of that jazz. That's how I learned it and then my interests soon turned to
intuitionistic logics and type theories. Still, the metatheory is very similar
and the metatheoretic differences between logics are often framed as
deviations from the metatheory of first order classical logic.

~~~
darkmighty
And classical logic is the one used in mathematics (and methatheories) because
those are the most useful axioms in that setting. (would you agree that's a
fair statement?)

For example, it's not useful to think an equality has 30% chance of being
true, or not having a truth value, and so on. It allows building structure on
solid foundations.

~~~
danharaj
I think intuitionistic logic is just as valid a foundation for mathematics as
classical logic. They both have very attractive features for mathematics. They
both appeal to different intuitions about what logic ought to be. When it
comes to mathematics, one is more natural than the other in different
contexts.

The proof theory of a logic is what is useful to mathematics. It's hard to
beat either classical or intuitionistic first order logic when it comes to
their proof theories. I think that's why nothing else really catches on. You
can build other logics on top of one or the other anyway. Another perspective
is that you can encode other logics in them.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
You are studying Boolean logic, xor you are not studying Boolean logic.

~~~
JadeNB
It is not the case that you both are, and are not, studying constructive
logic.

------
credit_guy
I study ontology, therefore I am.

------
elektromekatron
Never mind true or false, it is completely irrelevant that you are studying
ternary logic.

edit to add -

I can imagine an even greater being studying ontological logic.

