![]() ![]() Also popular in my neck of the woods is Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning by Kalish, Montague, and Mar. If I teach formal logic again, I’ll go back to using The Logic Book by Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson. That’s a benefit if you go through the more advanced parts of the text, in which they prove some results about the system. They made that choice, I think, in order to keep the formal system relatively simple. The authors of LPL are pretty spartan with the derivation rules. So, if you opt for it be sure to order it ASAP. They never did send the second copy for my TA. I didn’t get the text til the third week of classes and had to rely on a library copy (with no access to the software). When they did dispatch the book, they seem to have chosen the slowest mailing option. I didn’t find out about this until about a week into the class. It turned out that they won’t send any unless you write them a signed letter that provides certain bits of info. Chicago simply refused to send the desk copies. E.g., when the relevant official at my university’s textbook store placed the textbook order for my class, she ordered two desk copies (one for me, one for my TA). Their current distributor is the University of Chicago Press, which is not very accommodating when it comes to desk copies. Also, the authors need a better distributor. #Modal logic playground fullAs a result, students pretty much have to pay full price for a new copy. Its main selling point is its software, but if you buy a used copy of the book you don’t have access to the software. Some students were ticked off because there’s not much of a re-sale market for that text. Modal Logic is ideally suited as a core text for graduate and undergraduate courses in modal logic, and as supplementary reading in courses on mathematical logic, formal ontology, and artificial intelligence.I tried Language, Proof, and Logic this past term. Exercises regarding second-order predicate quantifiers clarify the distinction between existence-entailing concepts and concepts in general. The result is a deeper second-order analysis of possibilism and actualism as ontological frameworks. Two types of second-order modal logics, one possibilist and the other actualist, are developed based on a distinction between existence-entailing concepts and concepts in general. Exercises on this level show the connections between modal laws and quantifier logic regarding generalization into, or out of, modal contexts and the conditions required for the necessity of identity and non-identity. Both a first-order modal logic for possibilism containing actualism as a proper part as well as a separate modal logic for actualism alone are constructed for a variety of modal systems. On the first-order level of the logic of logical necessity, the modal thesis of anti-essentialism is valid and every de re sentence is provably equivalent to a de dicto sentence.Īn elegant extension of the standard sentential modal logics into several first-order modal logics is developed. Exercises, some of which show independence results, help to develop logical skills.Ī separate sentential modal logic of logical necessity in logical atomism is also constructed and shown to be complete and decidable. A matrix, or many-valued semantics, for sentential modal logic is formalized, and an important result that no finite matrix can characterize any of the standard modal logics is proven. All of the S1-S5 modal logics of Lewis and Langford, among others, are constructed. In this text, a variety of modal logics at the sentential, first-order, and second-order levels are developed with clarity, precision and philosophical insight. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |