Prev: solutions manual to Algebra Baldor
Next: Equilateral Triangle Tiler Conjecture! #512 Correcting Math
From: Marc Alcobé García on 18 Mar 2010 07:38
On 17 mar, 19:01, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> marcos <mar...(a)tomasacarolina.e.telefonica.net> writes:
> > Now I think that it's very simple, but the book should have explained
> > better.
>
> In the preface to the second edition Mendelson explains the text "was
> intended to be a simple, clear introduction to mathematical logic
> unencumbered by excessive notation and terminology". But, as we know
> from literary theory, authorial intent doesn't count for much.
>
> I've developed quite a distaste for the text -- which is by no means
> altogether deplorable, and does have significant redeeming qualities --
> mainly owing to Mendelson's style. (His occasional abuse of the English
> language can also be somewhat jarring.) I wonder, though, if those who
> have taught logic using this text would be willing to share their
> opinion?
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
>  - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Podnieks says in his http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/mlog/ml.htm that it
is his favorite printed textbook. Although he does not say why. His
other (quoted) references are Hilbert and Bernays Grundlagen and
Kleene's Intro. to metamath. and Math. logic.

I have never taught logic, but I think that there are two views to
take into account which are common to any theory or science:

One is the view of the user of the theory for whom only the results
are important (and maybe also how they are obtained, but always taking
the theory as something given that one must simply learn, and apply),

The other is the view of the theorist who cares on how the theory is
framed. We could call it also the foundational point of view.

The second perspective is commonly thought of as the view of experts,
attained only after having mastered the first. Hence most textbooks
are naturally biased towards the first of both views. But also some
students have the feeling that a far better understanding would be
attained if some more weight were put on the foundational point of
view which is usually only insufficiently hinted at. Unfortunately,
who is in a position to offer a coherent and complete picture of that
kind?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: solutions manual to Algebra Baldor
Next: Equilateral Triangle Tiler Conjecture! #512 Correcting Math