Why can we assume that? Is he an expert on the history of logic? That he's an expert in an adjacent field doesn't make him at all an expert on that. If you list

Why can we assume that? Is he an expert on the history of logic? That he's an expert in an adjacent field doesn't make him at all an expert on that. If you listen to his talks and compare with the actual texts he mentions you'll see that he's wrong. And the similarity is not "striking" at all. It's by design. It is only striking if you don't know the actual history of how these formal systems developed. A couple of years ago I composed an entire anthology on the subject: https://pron.github.io/computation-logic-algebra https://pron.github.io/computation-logic-algebra