shbloggin'

Monday, August 02, 2004

i'm back

i tried to publish something on my blog, but there were errors again, so i might just post in this one from now on and say "to hell" with my blog. urz called me earlier tonight; urz posted our conversation. i went to see modest mouse in milwaukee last night; it was pretty awesome. i'd recommend the experience to anyone. paying $3.50 for a coke is pretty lame though. i think i'll work some problems in "introduction to logic and the methodology of deductive sciences" by tarski later. they've been pretty simple thus far, but i get a little tired of working through simple problems just to do them, i like it better when i have some motivation, like when i need a certain result to prove something else i'm more motivated to prove the theorem that i need. i've been working through this simple book very slowly since i've been very lazy and i'm a bit of a perfectionist. i think i understand logic and the axiomatic method a lot better now. i felt the need to prove things more formally than tarski did earlier on in the book, and to come up with formal rules of inference where tarski just uses some informal reasoning. it was taking way too long though. if this all sounds complicated to you, it's not. it's like the very beginning of proof oriented mathematics. the value of the book to me isn't so much the book itself, but the thinking about math that i've done as a result of reading it. i think i think through things in a much more clear way now. i also hope to read some more of the dharma bums by kerouac later.

4 Comments:

  • cool, it worked, you can post :-)

    By Blogger kim, at 8/02/2004 1:56 AM  

  • So why are you learning this stuff? Just for fun, or for some other purpose? (Not a derisive question, I'm curious!)

    By Blogger William P, at 8/03/2004 10:00 AM  

  • i'm interested in math. after this book i hope to work through "sets for mathematics" by lawvere and rosebrugh. i guess i'm doing it "just for fun", as i'm not getting any academic credit for it. i took a course called "logic, sets, and functions" when i was in college and i got through it pretty easily since i was used to proving things in math classes. i don't think i thought too deeply about the subject matter though. i have a better understanding of logic and its relation to math now. sometimes you can go through things pretty superficially and not pick up on subtleties and distinctions.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 8/03/2004 6:42 PM  

  • Cool. You have my permission to continue doing what you're doing then. I've gone through most of "Naive Set Theory" by Halmos, which is a pretty standard undergrad text on the subject for pure math programs, and it's pretty interesting stuff. (But challenging.)

    By Blogger William P, at 8/04/2004 1:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home