You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am amateur in logics. I'm thrilled at your brilliant work and hope to learn the whole picture of proof systems.
But one thing confuses me as you preserve the notation system of each original monograph which clearly contradicts with each other and today's notation system.
Would you consider canonicalize them or juxtapose the canonical ones with the original ones so It would not be confusing to read each chapter?
Thanks again for the comprehensive work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @Tiancheng-Luo ! Thanks for your interest in this project.
Presenting each system in its original notation is one of the goals of this project, so that readers can appreciate the historical evolution of logical notation as well.
But, of course, having all proof systems using a common modern notation would be very valuable as well. One challenge with this goal, however, is that even today there is no common notation for the proof systems that are used today. For instance, sometimes people use different symbols for the same connective, and sometimes the same symbol is used for different connectives. A standard would be valuable, but often people tend to disagree on proposed standards and the standard ends up becoming yet another non-standard.
I am amateur in logics. I'm thrilled at your brilliant work and hope to learn the whole picture of proof systems.
But one thing confuses me as you preserve the notation system of each original monograph which clearly contradicts with each other and today's notation system.
Would you consider canonicalize them or juxtapose the canonical ones with the original ones so It would not be confusing to read each chapter?
Thanks again for the comprehensive work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: