User loginNavigation 
What would be involved in moving logic beyond FOL?Carl Hewitt has opined that firstorder logic (FOL) should not be regarded as logic of choice for various people such as computer scientists (e.g., he says "Firstorder theories are entirely inadequate for Computer Science" in a reply to me in Mathematics selfproves its own Consistency (contra Gödel et. al.). He recommends instead his InconsistencyRobust 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 firstorder logic should be comparably good or better for building on. What would an introductory logic course look like for, e.g., InconsistencyRobust 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? By Charles Stewart at 20170615 12:37  LtU Forum  previous forum topic  next forum topic  other blogs  4477 reads

Browse archivesActive forum topics 
Recent comments
6 hours 14 min ago
6 hours 31 min ago
10 hours 51 min ago
11 hours 28 min ago
12 hours 13 min ago
12 hours 32 min ago
12 hours 56 min ago
13 hours 8 min ago
13 hours 39 min ago
13 hours 49 min ago