Talk:Mathematical logic

message: I'm delighted to see the improvement in the article, and have just one suggestion.
Cantor first appears in this article in the discussion of the well-ordering principle.  Shouldn't his contribution be mentioned earlier in the history section?
Rick Norwood 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly, a synopsis of Cantor's work in set theory needs to be added to the 19th century section before the article is complete. Also Hermann Weyl's Das Kontinuum needs to be mentioned. Thanks for reading through the article and giving other suggestions, or editing it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantor 

message: I reworked some edits to the "Early history" section. Stuff about the 19th century belongs in the following section. In order to have a global viewpoint, and avoid historical myopia, we do need to recognize that non-Western cultures had their own traditions of logic. The dominance of Greek influence in medieval  and then 19th century work is, most likely, simply because non-Western work was much less known at the time. The same pattern has repeated itself in many areas of mathematics, where there was much duplication of effort (for example, Pascal's triangle). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early history 

message: Is modal logic really established as part of mathematical logic?  Given the ease with which Kripkean modal logics can be expressed in first-order logic, the case for modal logic is not directly one of expressiveness.
In computer science, modal logic is important because of the (relatively) good complexity classes of its various decision procedures.  In philosophical logic it is important because of its more natural relationship to natural language.  But are there any areas of core mathematical logic where modality is a valuable tool? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a core part of mathematical logic? No, certainly not. But it is important for the more philosophical side, and has the interesting applications to provability logic that are mentioned. So two sentences seems to me like a reasonable amount of time to spend on it, in the spirit of being "just slightly broader than the average mathematical logic textbook". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modal logic 

message: This deserves a section.  It may be best to treat it together with categorical logic.  — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment category theory is mentioned but not in the guise of categorical logic (to be fair, we also don't mention linear logic, etc.). Should we have a paragraph on categorical logic? I'm not sure yet, so the answer is probably yes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Mathematical logic#Algebraic logic, we link to Boolean algebra. Since that page is a DAB, does anyone object to replacing that mention with a piped link to Boolean algebra (logic)? The latter seems to be the meaning of 'Boolean algebra' that is intended here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. The right link is Boolean lattice. Boolean algebra (logic) is a POV fork of Propositional logic. The latter seems to be in worse shape than I remember. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Carl: thanks for your excellent precis.  It may be best to duck stating the relationship, since there is controversy over whether categorical logic is algebraic logic or some quite different way of doing logic algebraically. The right link is Boolean lattice. Boolean algebra (logic) is a POV fork of Propositional logic. The latter seems to be in worse shape than I remember. - oh god, not again!  We need some final resolution of this wikisore, I guess an RfC.  I don't have either the appetite or time to put one together soon, though. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Algebraic logic]] 

message: (Post moved to mathematics reference desk and deleted by poster)
:As I just suggested at Talk:Number theory, you should (a) take this to mathematics reference desk instead of posting on article talk pages; (b) explain your proof strategy in English before formalising it. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Gilisa (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Collatz conjecture

message: This article (written in 2000) is pretty interesting and may be worth a mention:
:Samuel R. Buss, Alexander A. Kechris, Anand Pillay, Richard A. Shore.
:"Prospects for mathematical logic in the twenty-first century."
:Journal of Symbolic Logic 7 (2001) 169-196.
http://math.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/ResearchWeb/FutureOfLogic/paper.pdf
pdf link from: http://math.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/ResearchWeb/FutureOfLogic/index.html
69.228.171.150 (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  logic in 21st century 

message: Absolutely, amazing... Nice job with merging symbolic logic, which is the logic of language meaning and mathematical logic which is the logic of mathematics... Are you a Republican?  Way to confuse the topics... Maybe if you do a search on ancient civilizations, you will only come up with Chariots of the Gods and think that all earlier civilization were founded by extraterrestrials... Then we can merge the 2 articles Ancient civilization and Extraterrestrials... Hey, what do you know? If we keep doing this, we can really condense Wikipedia down to a more "manageable" level... Wow, someone really needs to return to college... The entire article that was here on symbolic logic, which I used & contributed to during a semester is entirely gone... There is not a single reference to symbolic logic in this article...  You have deleted the entire subject on Wikipedia... As restricted intellectually, as the topic is, it should still be a part (article entry) of Wikipedia...  Hey, maybe we can merge  Calculus and Algebra - they sort of look the same...  then delete Calculus and we're all set... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whom you are addressing, and in what way you connect that person's actions with party affiliation, is obscure to me.  As I've said above, my understanding of the term symbolic logic is that it's simply an older term for mathematical logic (which by the way is not the same thing as "the logic of mathematics").  It's a term that carries a certain amount of philosophical baggage, that baggage being the most likely reason it's fallen into disuse.  If you have a different understanding, one that you can make precise and for which you can give references, by all means share. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see any "symbolic logic" article at SEP.  I generally think of "symbolic logic" as being topics like Venn diagrams, not what we usually think of as mathematical logic.  The Mathworld article "Symbolic Logic" cited as the the only reference for the old version (now merged) of symbolic logic, consisted of the single sentence "The study of the meaning and relationships of statements used to represent precise mathematical ideas. Symbolic logic is also called formal logic." with a few "see also" pointers.  It might be reasonable to merge some of the old content of "symbolic logic" that didn't make it into this article, into philosophical logic instead of here. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic Logic and Mathematical Logic '''are not the same thing''' 

message: same thing? very different? do we need 'see alsos' between the two? (I don't know for sure since I only studied it as an undergrad.)   TyrS  chatties  04:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need more see also links, but I added a link from the text here to propositional logic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Formal logic is usually divided into two parts, propositional calculus and predicate calculus.  Because "calculus" has today a more common meaning: "the study of limits, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series", I prefer propositional logic and predicate logic, but both phrases are used. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  propositional calculus = formal logic? 

message: . Tijfo098 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation guide ;-) 

message: is it ever a pre req for other math classes like finite math. Would geting a good grade in mathematical logic convince a counselor to let you skip certain classes? Poppurrpop (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You might consider asking this question at WP:RD/MATH.  This page is for discussing improvements to the article. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  If mathematical logic is a branch of math..? 

message: I have an objection to the restricted sense given to the expression "mathematical logic". It is true that on the one hand it means what you say, that is the exploration of mathematical concepts and workings by means of logic. On the other hand, in a way the converse is true, that is the formalisation and expression of logic by means of typically mathematical disciplines (or in other words the application of mathematical theories and systems to logic). This is especially the case historically, with the developments brought about by the work of the likes of De Moivre and in particular Boole (whose algebra fit perfectly logic concepts that were earlier handle through different means). The history of the intertwined relationship between logic and mathematics, I agree, is far from linear and id still in fruitful progress, but for such reasons I endorse a two-way view on it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8AD5:C150:790F:3BD7:736A:B759 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of mathematical logic 

message: Can someone explain how this new table in the "Formal logical systems" section is connected to mathematical logic?
Logical Judgement  	Branch of Logic	Computation phenomenon
K knows A          	Epistemic Logic	Distributed Computing
A is true at time t	Temporal Logic 	Reactive Programming (partial evaluation)
A is a resource    	Linear Logic   	Concurrent Computation
A is possible      	Lax Logic      	Generic effects (monads, state, exception)
A is valid         	Modal Logic    	Runtime code generation
If this table really does belong here, it's going to need some sort of explanation. A search for "Lax logic" in wikipedia doesn't find much.
--Alan U. Kennington (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have a citation and is far too much without a citation so it should just be removed. Dmcq (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Well they are all valid forms of mathematical logic, but the article overall has far too few references. It really is a bit of a mess that way. I think I'll add some tags on sections which have no citations at all. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I got bold and deleted the table. If someone wants to defend it, let him. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Oh, really? Well, but maybe its place is in another article - about Proof theory, from the viewpoint of computer science rather than math? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is epistemic/temporal/linear/lax/modal logic connected to mathematical logic? 

message: Although there are many inline citations in this article to classic historical papers, there are very few references which justify the picture which is painted in this article of both the history and current state of the subject. Many of the paragraphs seem quite dubious to me, just one particular view of the subject and one view of history, and some assertions seem to be false. Just adding citations of classic papers from a hundred years ago does not justify at all the picture which is painted of the scope of the whole subject and its history, nor of the particular assertions which are made. What is needed is more references to particular pages of particular reasonably recent books which cover this subject, especially for assertions which are dubious, controversial or tendentious. I definitely have the impression that this article is inadequately justified.
--Alan U. Kennington (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you could identify, on this talk page, some claims that seem false or tendentious to you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I think the previous section of the talk page was very apropos, and I have reverted that section of the article to a previous version, which is at least somewhat better. I agree with what you say about long lists, so why not simply mention the main two issues you see? I will attempt to improve them within the month. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of current references for the history and current state of the subject. 

message: Substituted at 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I made an initial effort to provide a description and properties of the Wikidata item , but I would appreciate someone with more expertise reviewing this. My initial description is based entirely on the Russian Wikipedia article:  Daask (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: could also use review. Daask (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with term: distinction on Wikidata 

message: When I hover over the Mathematical Logic link to this page from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms (First link in the article),
It comes up with disgusting unrelated image attached to the article. Please fix it! I don't know how to sorry.
It appears it was griefed or the image was misplaced. Bumv (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hover over Mathematical Logic