Who wants to be a logician? (anybody?)

[Bourbaki1123]

I'm interested in finding out who on this board has been afflicted with an unfortunate desire to become a logician, and what your interests are.

I'll start:

I'm interested in proof theory (presently I'm trying to learn about the Curry Howard Isomorphism), applications of model theory to number theory/algebraic geometry, reverse mathematics and some ideas from category theory/categorical logic.

I'm also very open to becoming an algebraic geometer, if I end up being a mathematician rather than a logician.

So, does anyone else like logic?

 

[micromass]

Yes, I like logic very much. Especially things like set theory. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to go into those fields, but I still have a lot of affinity for the topic.

I'm quite interested in things like:
- Model theory
- Universal algebra
- Boolean valued models

I don't claim to know much about these things, but it interests me. I wish I had more time to study it.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

I'm interested in finding out who on this board has been afflicted with an unfortunate desire to become a logician, and what your interests are.

I'll start:

I'm interested in proof theory (presently I'm trying to learn about the Curry Howard Isomorphism), applications of model theory to number theory/algebraic geometry, reverse mathematics and some ideas from category theory/categorical logic.

I'm also very open to becoming an algebraic geometer, if I end up being a mathematician rather than a logician.

So, does anyone else like logic?

What I like about logic is the non-intuitive things you can derive that appear inconsistent but are purely clear in the mathematics i.e Banach-Tarski Paradox.

 

[dcpo]

I guess I'm a kind of logician, though most of the stuff I've done has been on lattices and posets, the justification for looking at them (at least as far as my funding was concerned) was their uses in the model theory of alternative logics (though in truth I don't actually know very much about this). I use classical model theory quite a lot (saturation, compactness, ultraproducts etc.), and occasionally it turns out something is dependent on the existence of large cardinals so I have to know a little set theory, but I doubt I'll be making any contributions to either of these fields. I've also done a small amount of work in classical algebraic logic (relation algebras, cylindric algebras etc.). I have to know a little category theory (some topology too) as it crops up all the time in duality results (such as Stone's theorem and its generalizations).

 

[simplicity123]

I plan to become Algebraic geometer or category theorist/algebraic topology.

Could never study logic on it's own through. I have doubts that everything I'm doing is abstract nonsense and should be studying physics, if I do logic that would probably be amplified.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I plan to become Algebraic geometer or category theorist/algebraic topology.

Could never study logic on it's own through. I have doubts that everything I'm doing is abstract nonsense and should be studying physics, if I do logic that would probably be amplified.

It wouldn't be amplified if you learned about computability theory and computer science more generally. Logic is actually quite applicable, significantly more so than category theory (at least as far as I know, though category theory is certainly applicable and crosses over with computer science).

Automatic theorem proving, computability theory, computational complexity, formal verification methods, applications to problem solving in mathematics, logic programming, multi-agent protocols etc.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I guess I'm a kind of logician, though most of the stuff I've done has been on lattices and posets, the justification for looking at them (at least as far as my funding was concerned) was their uses in the model theory of alternative logics (though in truth I don't actually know very much about this).

That's actually an area I have some interest in learning about (model theory of alternative logics), I've been meaning to start reading Model-Theoretic Logics but haven't gotten around to it (between my courses, the math subject GRE looming overhead, trying to study algebraic geometry and the Curry Howard Isomorphism stuff... j'ai pas le temps )

I use classical model theory quite a lot (saturation, compactness, ultraproducts etc.), and occasionally it turns out something is dependent on the existence of large cardinals so I have to know a little set theory, but I doubt I'll be making any contributions to either of these fields. I've also done a small amount of work in classical algebraic logic (relation algebras, cylindric algebras etc.). I have to know a little category theory (some topology too) as it crops up all the time in duality results (such as Stone's theorem and its generalizations).

I'm familiar with compactness and ultraproducts (we did an ultrapower construction of the non-standard reals beck when I took mathematical logic 2), but we didn't touch on saturation (nor did we, to my recollection, actually prove the transfer principle since we were only dealing with the topic in passing).

Truthfully my model theory is somewhat rusty, though I'm quite interested in the subject and its applications. My proof theory background is significantly more robust. I plan to work through Chang and Keisler if time permits... though Wilfrid Hodges book also looks nice.

ETA: If you don't mind sharing; where (are you attending)/(did you attend) for your PhD?

 

[dcpo]

That's actually an area I have some interest in learning about (model theory of alternative logics), I've been meaning to start reading Model-Theoretic Logics but haven't gotten around to it (between my courses, the math subject GRE looming overhead, trying to study algebraic geometry and the Curry Howard Isomorphism stuff... j'ai pas le temps )

Well, as I said, I don't actually know much about this, but my understanding is that you can use lattices and posets extended by additional operations to provide algebraic semantics for various non-classical logics. For example, I'm interested in a construction called the 'canonical extension', which you can use to embed a poset or lattice expansion into a complete lattice. It turns out that the closure of the class of algebraic models for a logic under taking canonical extensions gives you complete relational semantics for that logic, which is good (or so I'm told).

I'm familiar with compactness and ultraproducts (we did an ultrapower construction of the non-standard reals beck when I took mathematical logic 2), but we didn't touch on saturation (nor did we, to my recollection, actually prove the transfer principle since we were only dealing with the topic in passing).

Truthfully my model theory is somewhat rusty, though I'm quite interested in the subject and its applications. My proof theory background is significantly more robust. I plan to work through Chang and Keisler if time permits... though Wilfrid Hodges book also looks nice.

Both those books are good, though I've found myself reaching Chang and Keisler more often than not when I want to look something up. Neither my model theory nor my proof theory is particularly hot but I use model theory more often. I guess that's because I'm approaching things from the algebra side, so model theory comes in handy for constructing things that have properties you want. Also, a significant proportion of my work so far has been trying to find counter examples to closure under ultraroots for various classes of posets and lattices, and so prove they're not elementary. Not particularly glamorous, but surprisingly hard in some cases.

 

[micromass]

Well, as I said, I don't actually know much about this, but my understanding is that you can use lattices and posets extended by additional operations to provide algebraic semantics for various non-classical logics. For example, I'm interested in a construction called the 'canonical extension', which you can use to embed a poset or lattice expansion into a complete lattice. It turns out that the closure of the class of algebraic models for a logic under taking canonical extensions gives you complete relational semantics for that logic, which is good (or so I'm told).


Both those books are good, though I've found myself reaching Chang and Keisler more often than not when I want to look something up. Neither my model theory nor my proof theory is particularly hot but I use model theory more often. I guess that's because I'm approaching things from the algebra side, so model theory comes in handy for constructing things that have properties you want. Also, a significant proportion of my work so far has been trying to find counter examples to closure under ultraroots for various classes of posets and lattices, and so prove they're not elementary. Not particularly glamorous, but surprisingly hard in some cases.

That's actually very interesting! Lattices and posets are a very interesting domain of study!

Judging by your user name, I thought you were into computer science

 

[dcpo]

That's actually very interesting! Lattices and posets are a very interesting domain of study!

Judging by your user name, I thought you were into computer science

Thanks, though it's possibly best to take what I say about the non-classical model theory stuff with a pinch of salt as I've not looked at this area in much depth.

Technically I think I am some kind of computer scientist as I work/study in a computer science department, but it's not my main interest (though it can be pretty interesting). My choice of user name is a result of having skimmed through a paper linking the canonical extension I was talking about before with DCPO presentations a few days ago. I suppose the word was on my mind at the time; I kind of like the sound of it.

 

[wukunlin]

I would love to take some courses on logic but I really have no time. They are so incredibly useful in programming and digital electronics

 

[Bourbaki1123]

Thanks, though it's possibly best to take what I say about the non-classical model theory stuff with a pinch of salt as I've not looked at this area in much depth.

Technically I think I am some kind of computer scientist as I work/study in a computer science department, but it's not my main interest (though it can be pretty interesting). My choice of user name is a result of having skimmed through a paper linking the canonical extension I was talking about before with DCPO presentations a few days ago. I suppose the word was on my mind at the time; I kind of like the sound of it.

Any chance you've played with lambda calculus much?

 

[dcpo]

Any chance you've played with lambda calculus much?

I'm afraid not.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I'm afraid not.

Fair enough. I ask because the only place I've seen DCPOs is in the context of the Scott Topology applied to lambda calculus.

 

[Anonymous217]

I'm a huge fan of category theory, and a bit of set theory/model theory. However, I don't think I have time to take many logic courses since my intention (for now) is to concentrate on topology (algebraic, differential, low-d, etc.).

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I'm a huge fan of category theory, and a bit of set theory/model theory. However, I don't think I have time to take many logic courses since my intention (for now) is to concentrate on topology (algebraic, differential, low-d, etc.).

Category theory is pretty great, are you familiar with categorical logic at all? You can define logics as categories where proof rules are morphisms between formulas. The concept is very intriguing to me; also of interest are cartesian closed categories and toposes because of their application to constructive mathematics.

 

[simplicity123]

The concept is very intriguing to me; also of interest are cartesian closed categories and toposes because of their application to constructive mathematics.

I don't see the point of constructive mathematics. Proof by contradiction doesn't seem that bad.

 

[micromass]

I don't see the point of constructive mathematics. Proof by contradiction doesn't seem that bad.

Banach-Tarski?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_Tarski

 

[dcpo]

Fair enough. I ask because the only place I've seen DCPOs is in the context of the Scott Topology applied to lambda calculus.

Funny you should mention the Scott topology because this crops up in the theory of completions for lattice expansion quite a lot.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I don't see the point of constructive mathematics. Proof by contradiction doesn't seem that bad.

Well, you have to fully consider what constructivism is, it is a fairly deep subject and is worth taking time to consider.

Proof by contradiction was not explicitly what the constructivist were/are worried about, they were worried about the law of excluded middle. There are plenty of examples of theorems where constructive existence does not follow from classical existence proofs.

In addition to that, I strongly preferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_analysis" . I find is somewhat implausible that earlier mathematicians intended there to be numbers that are not only transcendental, but are in fact void of any decimal approximation whatsoever.

In addition to this, because constructive implication is stronger than classical implication (and constructive proof is stronger than classical proof in general), you can embed classical logic in constructive logic and treat a proof by contradiction to be "evidence" for a construction.

If you want to learn about constructive mathematics you might lookhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/#RejTerNonDat" It took me a while to get to the point that I wasn't a bit up in arms against constructivism, what really made me like it was the realization that rather than totally throwing out classical logic, it provides more subtle distinctions than are possible in CL alone. It really is a beautiful perspective once you start to "get it".

Also, (and this will likely irk some people on here, and I'm really not trying to have a debate about it) it appears to me that the mind is computable, so I tend to view non-computable mathematics as computable mathematics obfuscated by the sort of mental hacks and tricks that come with being hairless apes (having not been selected with 'doing math' in "mind").

 

[Bourbaki1123]

Funny you should mention the Scott topology because this crops up in the theory of completions for lattice expansion quite a lot.

Well, it's the only non-explicitly-algebraic application of lattice theory I know of aside from some stuff I ran into about the Abstract Stone Duality (which looks super interesting, but I don't really have time to look at it, unfortunately).

 

[Anonymous217]

Category theory is pretty great, are you familiar with categorical logic at all? You can define logics as categories where proof rules are morphisms between formulas. The concept is very intriguing to me; also of interest are cartesian closed categories and toposes because of their application to constructive mathematics.

Just an elementary understanding (only a few weeks spent on the material). Since it's quite important for algebraic topology in particular, I might take a course on it next semester. It depends on what else I'm doing.

 

[simplicity123]

It just seems that logic is abstract nonsense. Category theory to me seems like abstract nonsense most of the time, however I feel logic is my best subject.

I suppose it's better to do something that is non-tedious than doing something that is tedious.

 

[Functor97]

I find the field of logic to be quite captivating and it is one of the areas i will consider future research in.
On the one hand it is the field that lays the foundations of the rest of mathematics, but i also feel that it would limit my ability to understand more applied fields of mathematics, which i also have an interest in.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

It just seems that logic is abstract nonsense. Category theory to me seems like abstract nonsense most of the time, however I feel logic is my best subject.

I suppose it's better to do something that is non-tedious than doing something that is tedious.

I've never been able to find a cogent explanation of what 'abstract nonsense' means (I suspect that it is an utterance indicating vague distaste, sort of like a moral claim), but much of it is totally practical if you know what it's actually being used for or what it does. Typically most of the applications are in computer science.

 

[simplicity123]

I've never been able to find a cogent explanation of what 'abstract nonsense' means (I suspect that it is an utterance indicating vague distaste, sort of like a moral claim), but much of it is totally practical if you know what it's actually being used for or what it does. Typically most of the applications are in computer science.

I remember reading that in Serge Langs Algebra book. I think he used the term general abstract nonsense.

But, in one of Du Sautoy popular book he quotes Siegel said that the bourbaki trend is going to destroy Maths and he complained his work is being rewritten in the theory of empty sets is ugly. According to the book he said that I see a pig broken into a beautiful garden and rooting up all flowers and trees.

Selberg also said something similar. Chaitin also said something similar, but more he was complaining that abstraction was taking away the need for English and that less and less words are being used.

At what point does abstraction become nonsense. Like abstraction just to be abstract. Sort of like art needing to be shocking, so every piece becomes more and more shocking. So you have classical art that is really beautiful and then modern art that is stuff like beds or rubbish stuck together.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I remember reading that in Serge Langs Algebra book. I think he used the term general abstract nonsense.

But, in one of Du Sautoy popular book he quotes Siegel said that the bourbaki trend is going to destroy Maths and he complained his work is being rewritten in the theory of empty sets is ugly. According to the book he said that I see a pig broken into a beautiful garden and rooting up all flowers and trees.

Selberg also said something similar. Chaitin also said something similar, but more he was complaining that abstraction was taking away the need for English and that less and less words are being used.

At what point does abstraction become nonsense. Like abstraction just to be abstract. Sort of like art needing to be shocking, so every piece becomes more and more shocking. So you have classical art that is really beautiful and then modern art that is stuff like beds or rubbish stuck together.

I'm well aware that many people have used it, but you're basically agreeing with me that it's nothing more than a statement that shows aesthetic distaste. I don't think it really has anything behind it beyond personal preference... besides, I like a lot of modern art, not necessarily anything like rubbish stuck together, but that's not all there is to modern art of course. Just like being abstract isn't the central point of logic.

 

[micromass]

I'm well aware that many people have used it, but you're basically agreeing with me that it's nothing more than a statement that shows aesthetic distaste. I don't think it really has anything behind it beyond personal preference... besides, I like a lot of modern art, not necessarily anything like rubbish stuck together, but that's not all there is to modern art of course. Just like being abstract isn't the central point of logic.

It doesn't express distaste. The term comes from Steenrod and MacLane. They didn't use it to express distaste, since they were the founders of category theory.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

It doesn't express distaste. The term comes from Steenrod and MacLane. They didn't use it to express distaste, since they were the founders of category theory.

Man, nevermind, I was totally confused. I had a false memory of this being used disdainfully to refer to Hausdorf's work in set theory.

ETA: Even worse, I've read about the correct usage and even written a couple comments regarding it in the past; no idea what I was thinking. Of course, my complaints as to a "pig rooting up flowers in a garden" still stands. There is a lot of disdain for what are perceived as sterile abstractions.

 

[EkaterinaAvd]

I just like a joke about logicians:

Three logicians are sitting in the restaurant.
A waitress asks: "Will everyone of you drink coffee?"

The 1st logician: "I don't know"
The 2nd logician: "I don't know"
The 3rd logician: "Yes"

 

[Bourbaki1123]

I just like a joke about logicians:

Three logicians are sitting in the restaurant.
A waitress asks: "Will everyone of you drink coffee?"

The 1st logician: "I don't know"
The 2nd logician: "I don't know"
The 3rd logician: "Yes"

I like that one. They should have stuck it in the dynamic epistemic logic text I bought.