[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 9 KB, 200x247, quine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4366007 No.4366007[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hello /lit/!

So I've taken it upon myself to teach myself logic this winter. I found a book by WVO Quine in the library the other day called Elementary Logic and it seems neat (I'm going slowly with it so I'm only 12 pages in so far) but I can't help but wonder if some of the notation is still valid. In the preface, Quine mentions that this is a revised edition from sometime in 1960's where he fixed a bunch of stuff that had changed in the world of logic since the original publication. Going off that I found a handy little teach-yourself book online and I noticed some of the notational symbols are different. As this one was written much more recently I am starting to have doubts about the Quine book.

Any suggestions? Anyone use Quine's book and can comment?

Here's the link to the online one I found in case anyone knows of it and can comment on that as well. http://www.fecundity.com/logic/

>> No.4366055
File: 33 KB, 567x459, wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4366055

One bump before I return Quine's book and go with the online one.

>> No.4366078

The notation isn't "valid" but it might be outdated (i.e. in terms of frequency in its usage); in fact, IIRC, Quine's notation is similar to Mendelson's, which is left at with the minority of its proponents.

I'd suggest using the "forallx" book instead; IIRC it's being used by Cambridge undergrads.

>> No.4366087

>>4366078
Ok cool. Thanks for the response. Further googling showed that classrooms sometimes use the forallx book so if teachers find it good enough, then it should be fine for a neophyte like myself.