
The Open Logic Project - altro
http://openlogicproject.org/
======
JadeNB
I'm a little disconcerted by the fact that no-one involved in this is a
mathematician, full stop. At least three of those involved seem to have joint
appointments in math and philosophy (Antonelli, Arana, and Avigad). While the
aim of the text to be suitable for non-mathematician philosophy majors means
that a heavy bias towards philosophers is probably both inevitable and
correct, I would like to see at least one just-mathematician to make sure that
it really deserves its description as _mathematical_ logic.

(Maybe I am being unfair to those jointly appointed. I am a mathematician, but
not a logician, so I don't have a proper sense of what such an appointment
means.)

~~~
nmrm2
Just from purusing the author's personal websites: Avigad's Ph.D. is in
Mathematics (from Berkeley) and he is a professor in a mathematics department.

More to the point, _Mathematical Logic_ is a bit of a term of art referring in
general to the study of formal logical systems and related
objects/constructions. The term Mathematical Logic is typically used to
distinguish from e.g. the sort of informal logic you might encounter in a
course where one might read Aristotle and discuss informal logical fallacies.

Also, TBF, _a lot_ of Mathematical Logic happens in analytically-inclined
Philosophy departments these days. And it's not at all uncommon for a
Mathematics department to have exactly zero Logicians. Just playing the odds,
it's somewhat unsurprising that a group of high-quality Mathematical Logicians
just happened to not include any people with a sole appointment to a
Mathematics department.

~~~
JadeNB
> Avigad's Ph.D. is in Mathematics (from Berkeley) and he is a professor in a
> mathematics department.

Indeed, as are Antonelli and Arana. They carry joint appointments in math and
philosophy, which, if I am being fair, should probably mean that their
opinions should be given more, not less, weight in a book like this targeted
at philosophers.

> More to the point, Mathematical Logic is a bit of a term of art referring in
> general to the study of formal logical systems and related
> objects/constructions. The term Mathematical Logic is typically used to
> distinguish from e.g. the sort of informal logic you might encounter in a
> course where one might read Aristotle and discuss informal logical
> fallacies.

Oh, thanks! I didn't realise this.

> Just playing the odds, it's somewhat unsurprising that a group of high-
> quality Mathematical Logicians just happened to not include any people with
> a sole appointment to a Mathematics department.

I agree that this would be unsurprising in a random selection _from a random
fixed department_ , but not so much in an institutions-spanning effort like
this one. Nonetheless, as I mention, I should probably attach more, not less,
weight to a joint appointment.

------
winestock
To round out suggestions for studying logic, I recommend the following.

Mathematical Logic, Set Theory and its Logic, Methods of Logic. All three of
these are by Willard van Orman Quine. If you know anything about modern logic,
then that is a name that you should recognize.

A more accessible textbook is Sweet Reason by Tymoczko & Henle. They're a
philosopher & mathematician pair and I like their approach. I'm currently
halfway through the first edition. The errors are a bit annoying and I wish
that I had waited for the second edition.

We're all nerds, here, so I understand the emphasis on mathematical logic, but
you owe it to yourself to be familiar with traditional Aristotelian logic, as
well. Noting the difference in mindset between traditional and modern logic is
enlightening.

Being Logical, by D.Q. McInerny is a quick introduction to traditional logic.
Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft is much more involved. Be warned; Kreeft takes
a strong stand against modern logic. He has some good points, but he's a bit
unfair.

------
infodroid
Looks like a great start. But I didn't find any intention to add some
exercises. No textbook is complete without exercises!

