![S0022481200035350_eqnU3[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/Y1bru3m.gif "S0022481200035350_eqnU3[1].gif")
Any math majors in here ever looked at a symbolic logic course from a philosophy department. I'm not talking about some basic "logic" or "critical thinking" course where they introduce deduction and argumentation. What's your guys' opinion on it?
Yeah, I've done it. It was essentially a math class.
>>8015257
Just take the mathematical logic course in the math department.
>>8015263
This. Personally I found it very valuable since the derivation systems they describe give you a road map for proof writing for virtually any statement.
>>8015257
Is that from "Principia Mathematica"? It looks like Whitehead's/Russell's notation.
The beauty and failure of predicate logic is that it allows to axiomize nitions of collections that enable you to do model theory and those are used to mimic otherwise candidates for primitive notions such as relationsand functions. As mathematicans became used to do this, they never carried on developing other logics, like the philosophers who aren't so much tied to arithmetic, did. If you want to see modal logic, you'll end up with books from philosophy depts. Computer scientists are on the rise, though, and often use others logical notions than the good old all-quantor
>>8015263
This. Took modal logic.
>>8016087
I have a hard copy of PM and this was my first thought as well. The typeface and general arrangement of information is much the same as PM. However, I think that OP's picture is /not/ from PM, unless someone (OP?) can tell me otherwise, or where the image came from.
Pic related is a page that actually /is/ from PM, specifically, it's from the middle of the second (and final) edition's introduction, and its typesetting is the same as the body of the text. Notice three things.
1) OP's exixtential quantifier is more flat and "modern", while PM's (visible on this page) is quite simply an upside down Times-New Roman looking E.
2) The "implies/superset" character of the OP is also a bit more modern-looking, as opposed to the bold "backwards-C" of PM.
3) OP's abbreviated forms "Princ, Der, Anc" are not readily to be found in this link (though you can find some matching text strings which suggest meanings):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Principia_Mathematica
The reason why I focus on the font is that to my knowledge, PM was "printed" just those two times a century ago, and everyone's just been scanning or photocopying/PDF'ing the same hard-copy type ever since. I tried reverse googling but didn't see anything right away. Also PM doesn't use subscripts /quite/ so often, except at the back of v.2 or 3. Once you look closer, it looks less and less like PM, and more like related work that someone else did later, in the middle of the 20th century.
Or maybe OP's 'aving a giggle m8.
>>8015257
No, but I've wanted to ever since I learned about existential graphs and semiotics.
>>8016701
>The "implies/superset" character
That character is what looked most "PM-like" to me. Also it can a bit confusing, given that implication is the logical counterpart to the SUBset relation in set theory:
[math](A \subset B) \iff (x \in A \enspace \Rightarrow \enspace x \in B)[/math]
Yet for one reason or another Whitehead and Russell chose to use the SUPERset symbol to represent implication.
>to my knowledge, PM was "printed" just those two times a century ago
That would not be surprising, given that the publisher was unwilling to finance the printing, and W&R had to cover the costs by themselves.
>>8015257
Went to a linguistics class, it was all about how to use syntax and first/second order logic to analyze language
Breddy cool
>>8016762
More comic plx
>>8016762
>Yet for one reason or another Whitehead and Russell chose to use the SUPERset symbol to represent implication.
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31029/why-was-the-horseshoe-symbol-%E2%8A%83-selected-for-material-implication/31031#31031
