## User login## Navigation |
## archives## What would be involved in moving logic beyond FOL?Carl Hewitt has opined that first-order logic (FOL) should not be regarded as logic of choice for various people such as computer scientists (e.g., he says "First-order theories are entirely inadequate for Computer Science" in a reply to me in Mathematics self-proves its own Consistency (contra Gödel et. al.). He recommends instead his Inconsistency-Robust Logic for mathematicians, computer scientists and others. What would it take to really change our perspective to be grounded in a logic other than FOL? I think that looking at John Corcoran's First days of a logic course provides the beginnings of an answer (the article treats Aristotelian logic rather than FOL): an alternative logic should provide a natural basis grounding all of the concepts that we expect a new student of logic to grasp, and a rival to the kind of traditional logic course based on first-order logic should be comparably good or better for building on. What would an introductory logic course look like for, e.g., Inconsistency-Robust Logic? Would it start with Aristotelian logic or would it start with something else? What would having taken such a course be good for, as a prerequisite? |
## Browse archives## Active forum topics |

## Recent comments

6 hours 12 min ago

6 hours 29 min ago

10 hours 49 min ago

11 hours 26 min ago

12 hours 10 min ago

12 hours 30 min ago

12 hours 54 min ago

13 hours 5 min ago

13 hours 37 min ago

13 hours 47 min ago