Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: The two rules (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:55:52 +0200
Message-ID: <v8mchn$ojjb$1@solani.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 22:55:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="806507"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lcSHstLejhE3eW4zQGVOzemrdts=
X-User-ID: eJwNysEBwCAIA8CVEEKs41Ak+4/Q3vsyuNgbTCKVYh696lhWdwz30ckSkn+SEKjwGdMMw6b6huHIEO6b3vYBbTUVvA==
In-Reply-To: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org>
Bytes: 3153
Lines: 69


Well we all know about this rule:

- Never ask a woman about her weight

- Never ask a woman about her age

There is a similar rule for philosophers:

- Never ask a philosopher what is cognitive science

- Never ask a philosopher what is formula-as-types

Explanation: They like to be the champions of
pure form like in this paper below, so they
don’t like other disciplines dealing with pure
form or even having pure form on the computer.

"Pure” logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith - Revue internationale de philosophie 2003/2
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
> world was asleep for many years:
> 
> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
> 
> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
> for symple types:
> 
> ----------------
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
> 
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
> ----------------
> Γ ⊢ A → B
> 
> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
> ----------------------------
> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
> 
> And funny things can happen, especially when people
> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
> 
> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
> 
> Recommended reading so far:
> 
> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
> 
> The Logic of Church and Curry
> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
> 
> logic without embedded implication.