Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 24 August 2009

Some sources for your history of Logic

I've been able to download Venn's Symbolic logic, two Jevons, Couturat's The algebra of Logic, Boole's An investigation of the laws of thought and De Morgan 1847 Formal Logic from googlebooks; see the reference list at function(mathematics) -- van Heijenoort is most useful. You'll find more about Jevons's and Venn's gizmos at Algorithm characterizations (I just put that in this past week). Also there's some stuff at the Axiom of reducibility.

Have you seen any of Schroeder in English in the public domain, or Peirce in the public domain? Bill Wvbailey (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see a bit more about Venn's and Jevons's gizmos in the history section of Algorithm. Wvbailey (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Function (mathematics) is quite impressive, although it does contain slightly eccentric things like "Logicians of this time were primarily involved with analyzing syllogisms". I used to have Heijenoort but it was on loan. I will look at the bibliography. Logicist (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I hope you can hang around for a little while more . . ..Can you recommend any books written more recently that discuss the history of 18th-19th century logic? The whole business of the propositional function is really key; what also is interesting from a historical perspective is the disappearance of the word "predicate" and then its re-emergence (as synonymous with propositional function), and then the disappearance of the notion of "function" with respect to "proposition", all of this happening sometime in the mid 20th C. There are still a lot of loose threads in my treatment, but I'm making progress. (I need to see Schroeder -- but can't read German -- and Peirce even if it means getting into the journals (icky dusty things that they are)). Bill Wvbailey (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks as though I haven't been blocked yet even though I am on the Cabal's 'most wanted list' and pretty well public enemy #1 as far as the Cabal is concerned. I've never got into trouble on the article space side, however, my offences are purely 'political'. To your question. You will find few if any books on 18th century logic, for the reason that there was very little work on logic in that period that is now taken seriously. For understanding the relation between the development of the predicate calculus and traditional logic as it was understood in the early nineteenth century, however, I can recommend the following.

• Reid's account of Aristotle's Logic. This is eighteenth century, but excellent picture of how philosophers of that period understood Aristotle's logic. It is also a fairly interesting and penetrating account of Aristotle's work. There is an online version on my website .
• By the way my website which concentrates on primary source material on traditional logic, may interest you. Feel free to wander round.
• Mill's System of Logic is essential reading. It has errors, but all the more important to understand how 19C writers viewed logic - Mill's book went through many editions and was influential.
• Arthur Prior's book The Doctrine of Propositions and Terms. Slightly old, written in the 1960's, but it is a classic.
• Michael Beaney The Frege Reader. More recent, but an instant classic. Get it now if you don't already have it.
• A piece of mine, together with an original paper by Land, is also worth reading , which conveys a flavour of how traditional logicians of the 1870's viewed an important innovation of modern logic.
• I also recommend the Square of Opposition congress in 2010 . I went to the last one and it has some real enthusiasts, as well as some well-known names.

All the best Logicist (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

On your question about the use of the word 'predicate' that is an interesting question. I believe the term (not the idea, that is earlier) 'propositional function' originates with Russell, Principles of Mathematics. Well worth reading also, particular for its account of Russell's paradox. Logicist (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

As a courtesy, I am informing you that I have called for comment about your continued editing here at Misplaced Pages. -- Thekohser 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it is no secret that I am the individual who also owns the User:Peter Damian account (now sadly blocked, including the talk page and email access, so that any opportunity to argue my case was prohibited). Thank you for bringing this to light. Logicist (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)