3 ms·
> Logic isn't a translation layer. It's more like a theoretical machine. More precisely, it is a model for human thought. The way logic is similar to UI is tha
by sid0 16y ago
> Logic isn't a translation layer. It's more like a theoretical machine.
More precisely, it is a model for human thought. The way logic is similar to UI is that logic's philosophical success is a function of how well human thought maps to it and how intuitive theorems in the logic are, just as UI's success is a function of how intuitive it is. The last hundred years of discourse on philosophical logic have been focused on one thing -- to formalize the human notion of implication better than material implication does. That's why logicians came up with non-classical logics of the modal, counterfactual (which captures the very intuitive notion of mutatis mutandis), fuzzy and intuitionistic varieties.
- astrofinch 16y agoOK, but has anyone managed to construct the real numbers with intuitionist logic? Maybe different logics are like different building materials, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
- sid0 16y ago> OK, but has anyone managed to construct the real numbers with intuitionist logic? I think it should be possible to do so. As long as you don't need the law of the excluded middle you should be fine. > Maybe different logics are like different building materials, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. I see where you're coming from, but I think logic is more than just a tool.
- sid0 16y agoSorry, that's more precisely ceteris paribus -- "all else being the same".