wedrifid comments on Proofs, Implications, and Models - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 October 2012 01:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (209)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 October 2012 07:38:37AM 2 points [-]

Tried an edit.

Math professors certainly understand instinctively what connects premises to conclusions, or they couldn't do algebra. It's trying to talk about the process explicitly where the non-modern-logicians start saying things like "proofs are absolutely convincing, hence social constructs".

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 29 October 2012 08:56:48AM *  1 point [-]

A math professor who failed to get a solid course in formal logic sounds unlikely... (If it's not what you are saying, it's not clear to me what that is.)

Comment author: [deleted] 29 October 2012 11:02:43AM *  9 points [-]

I go to a Big Ten university where the graduate-level sequence in formal logic hasn't been taught in six years.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 March 2013 12:02:03PM 3 points [-]

Update: It's being taught again in the fall semester!

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 29 October 2012 08:59:40PM 2 points [-]

I never got a course in formal logic, and could probably have been close to being a math professor by now.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 October 2012 10:06:28AM 0 points [-]

Yes, well, the problem is that many courses on "logic" don't teach model theory, at least from what I've heard. Try it and see. I could've just been asking the wrong mathematicians - e.g. a young mathematician visiting CFAR knew about model theory, but that itself seems a bit selected. But the modern courses could be better than the old courses! It's been known to happen, and I'd sure be happy to hear it.

(I'm pretty sure mathbabe has been through a course on formal logic and so has Samuel R. Buss...)

Comment author: CronoDAS 29 October 2012 07:23:25PM *  7 points [-]

When I went to Rutgers, the course on proof theory and model theory was taught by the philosophy department. (And it satisfied my humanities requirement for graduation!)

Comment author: Lambda 31 August 2013 06:23:02AM 1 point [-]

At Yale, the situation is similar. I took a course on Gödel's incompleteness theorem and earned a humanities credit from it. The course was taught by the philosophy department and also included a segment on the equivalence of various notions of computability. Coolest humanities class ever!

I shudder to think of what politics were involved to classify it as such, though.

Comment author: VAuroch 12 December 2013 10:37:30AM 0 points [-]

Probably it was that a Phil professor wanted to teach the class, and no one cared to argue. It's not things like which classes are taught that are the big political fights, to my knowledge; the fights are more often about who gets the right to teach a topic of their choosing, and who doesn't.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 October 2012 11:04:56AM 0 points [-]

Have you read the book of Marker? I love that thing to pieces.

Comment author: nshepperd 29 October 2012 10:30:35AM *  0 points [-]

Robin Hanson sometimes complains that when he tries to argue that conclusion X follows from reasonable-sounding premises Y, his colleagues disagree with X while declining to say which premise Y they think is false, or pointing out which step of the reasoning seems like an invalid implication.

I parsed this as "...his colleagues disagree with X while declining ... or while pointing out which step of the reasoning seems like an invalid implication", which is the opposite of what you meant.

I think the correct syntax here is "...his colleagues disagree with X while declining to say which premise..., or to point out which step...", which links the two infinitives "to say" and "to point out" to the verb "declining". ETA: The current edit works too.