Catch Unified Logic: How To Divide By Zero, Solve The Liars Paradox, And Understand The Nature Of TruthBollinger, Jesse Imagined By Jesse Bollinger Presented As File

fine on my Huawei m, I'm just finishing the first chapter, and after forcing myself to get through the very technical section, I am enjoying the writer's style, and the push through that section was definitely worth it.
I'll probably update this later, but I wanted to let you know that it is quite readable on my device, This book ispages long but lacks an index, When was the last time that you saw a non fiction book this big without an index Hmmm You'll have to navigate using the table of contents.
Good luck. Well, okay, never mind. So, what's really wrong with this book A few points,There are lots and lots and lots of definitions, None are in proper form, i, e. , A df B. We can't tell what concepts are taken as primitive undefined and are used to define other concepts, Are all the concepts necessary I have no idea, How are they related With all the verbiage thrown around, it's impossible to tell,The fallacy of ad hominem is explained on page, Evidently, the author thinks he is exempt from it, There are lots and lots and lots of examples of it in the book, Epistemology, for example, is dismissed as a "waste of time, " Tell it to Descartes, Hume, Kant , Jesse,The author admits that what he calls "transformative logic" is closely related to the standard distinction between syntactic and semantic consequence, which has been well understood for than a century.
Why reinvent the wheel The author answers p,"I have too little knowledge of the field of proof theory" and that he "doesn't understand" how the syntactic consequence operator works.
What next "I don't understand how calculus, relativity theory, evolution work, so I'll invent me own, "The author thinks that objects, rather than statements, are true or false, No kidding. Thus, a spoon is true because there are spoons and unicorns are false because there aren't any unicorns, Why do we need to say that objects have truth value I'll let you read the author's explanation for yourself, It's a howler. Anyhow, "the statement that there are spoons is true" will do just fine, as we don't need to say that "spoons are true because there are spoons.
" Evidently the author hasn't heard of Okham's razor,Georg Cantor's contributions to set theory are given short shrift ad hominem language, The author thinks George Boole should get the credit, Kind of late in the day to be arguing about this, Jesse, Anyhow, one of the "arguments" against Cantor's theory p,is that "Ludwig Wittgenstein opposed it, " This is simply false. The objections to infinity p,again are just plain silly, Sorry Jesse, you had this coming,Speaking of giving credit where due, because there is no index I have no idea whether Frege is given proper credit for developing modern logic, specifically, the correct theory of quantification in first order logic the function argument correlation and stacking quantifiers, which broke away from two thousand years of Aristotle's syllogisms.
So, don't waste your time with this book, This is a very interesting book about a rigorous topic such as Logic but approached in a very unusual way, Definitely a must if you'd like to have a new perspective on Mathematics and Logic, This book would have benefited from a heavy handed editor, It would be less than half the length, for one!When the author sticks to his subject, he is at least interesting not without issues, as others have noted, but worth engaging with.
But in order to get to the actual material the book is about, one has to wade through pages and pages of the author's rants on every topic under the sun.
Some of them I have mild sympathy toward, others I regard as embarrassingly ignorant, but none of them have any place in a book on logic.
The author's strident tone and constant use of invective and ad hominem also grates badly on the nerves, The sheer hypocrisy of indulging these so lavishly while carefully describing why they are wrong takes one's breath away! ANew

Release in the logic category on in, now updated forwith many minor improvements!Discover surprising new solutions to legendary paradoxes once thought to be unsolvable.
Master the fundamental underlying principles of logic and acquire a intuitive and natural grasp of how to reason correctly, Free your mind from the daily fog of irrationality and misinformation by empowering yourself with the guiding light of logic, This is a book about both formal logic and informal logic, a book about both rigor and intuition, Too many books on logic are too dry and unmotivated and lacking in spirit, This book is designed to be different, Its designed to capture the real underlying essence of each concept it discusses in a genuinely clarifying and easy to understand way.
Its about reimagining and reexamining the foundations of logic to uncover hidden insights and bizarre new possibilities, Its a journey into the uncharted wilderness of reason, a strange new landscape where the rules can bend in wonderfully unexpected and arbitrary ways.
This book is designed with both beginners and experts in mind, Its written in a conversational, free flowing, and accessible style, and doesnt shy away from exploring lots of interesting tangential thoughts and useful ideas.
Here are just a few of the things youll find inside: a new proposed solution to the liars paradox, a legendary paradox of logic that has eluded humanity for than roughlyyears since its inception numerous easily understood thought experiments and aha moments designed to instill you with a genuine and principled understanding of the structure of logical thought two new branches of logic, transformative logic and unified logic, the former of which is intended to be able to express very arbitrary systems in a flexible way and the later of which is intended to unify the most important non classical logics together into one all encompassing system that satisfies the primary criteria of all of them simultaneously new forms of logical implication which possess much better behaving properties than material implication and which seem to provide a partial bridge between formal logic and natural language a new proposed solution to Russells paradox yet another world famous paradox, one that seems to remove the need to use an awkward system of axioms e.
g. ZFC for set theory, thereby allowing you to have a system which is both naive i, e. intuitive and rigorous at the same time a multitude of bizarre new operations made possible by unified logic, such as division by zero for example, and thats not even the weirdest example an in depth and useful discussion of informal logic, including numerous logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and even including a few new ones that I thought of myself lots of other useful ideas, such as how to achieve creativity at will, how to potentially fix out of control healthcare prices, how to stay productive even if you hate rigid schedules, etc The informal part of the book can be read independently of the formal part, so that less technically inclined readers can still get good value out of the book even if they get stuck.
The formal part is very approachable too though, Dont underestimate yourself. Investing in learning logic is worth it, Broaden your perspective by exploring some fresh new perspectives! It may help inspire some new ideas of your own too! I knew this was a bit on the crackpotish side when I purchased it, but I hoped there might be an interesting kernel of insight.
Unfortunately, if it is there, it seems obscured by errors, The author argues that physical objects are the correct bearers of truth ie truth is not a property of sentences, Based on examples, it seems the author really means that categories of physical objects eg "spoon", as opposed to "this particular spoon" are 'true' if they are inhabited eg, the author notes that 'unicorn' is false.
The author doesn't seem to notice that a trivial implication of this theory is that no falsehoods exist everything is true, since falsehood is that which does not exist, by definition.
A sentence is then trivially true if it is a sentence that exists eg, if it is written down, Fortunately, the author admits that we can assign a second kind of truth value to a sentence, based on its intended meaning eg, "the chair is next to the table" is true if there is indeed a chair next to a table.
He says that we assign this meaning based on all the objects which the sentence refers to, plus the relations indicated by the sentence.
This is called the "semantic set" of the sentence, So "the chair is next to the table" is true if the chair exists, the table exists, and the next to relationship exists between them.
Unfortunately, this definition gives no way to handle negation, What if I say "the chair is not next to the table" He seems to translate sentences like this in an ad hoc manner, based on what makes sense at the time.
For his theory to ever judge such sentences true, he needs there to be an object which exists which bears witness to the non existence of another object.
He does not discuss this, Instead, it seems to me that his theory as stated implies that all negations are not true that is, they have an empty semantic set, so they refer to a falsehood.
This is a consequence of the fact I mentioned earlier: no falsehoods exist, So any sentence which refers to a falsehood is referring to a thing which does not exist, Therefore, since to evaluate to true every item in the semantic set is required to exist, negations must generally evaluate to false in his theory.
However, he misses this implication, and when he wants uses special case evaluation of negations to make them come out true as he sees fit.
This is critical to his resolution of the liar paradox: the sentence in question is "This sentence is false", so he translates it has having an empty semantic set which he equates with it being false.
But, it seems to me, this relies on the same reasoning by which all negations are false in his theory!Still, the book is not totally not thought provoking.
I appreciate the style in which it is written, and the chutzpah of taking on these issues, .