Thread: new paper about an interesting new approach to logic

I’d like to inform you of a manuscript I have (pre-)published in the arxiv site at

[1107.4696] A different approach to logic.

The paper is about an approach to logic that differs from the standard first-order logic and other known approaches. It should be a new approach I’ve created proposing to obtain a general and unifying approach to logic and a faithful model of human mathematical deductive process.
Further details in the abstract and introduction (and in the paper, of course).
The latest version will be online at Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT.

Mauro Avon

I think you used MSWord and then converted to PDF. To tell you honestly, the symbols are not explicitly defined. I think the author must used LATEX in order to be more beautiful. I cannot comment the content yet but I will try to analyze your work.Thanks.

I am not competent to judge the veracity of the paper. However, I would point you to this interesting link that I think contains much wisdom. I would by no means discourage honest work, but I think this blog post has much to consider.

The point about LaTeX is interesting, so I might mention that at present I have abandoned the use of WYSIWYG word processors for everything other than reading .doc files that I am sent. Even my personal correspondence is now essentially in LaTeX (often via LyX or TeXmacs).

However the failure to use LaTeX is irrelevant since OOo will export a document in LaTeX, and will translate MS Word equations into its native equation format on loading so given a Word document it can be translated into LaTeX fairly easily (last time I tried this some hand fettling was still required, but not much)

CB

Yes, i used msword and not latex. Sorry for this .. i'm considering to convert it to latex but i don't know if and when this will be available. Currently i don't know latex and i have little time available, so a latex version will not be available in a short time.

Since i don't know latex I don't know what is the time required to this conversion.

For these reasons i hope to get a judgement on the content of the paper without having to convert it to latex.

As regards the link posted by Ackbeet it's sure that point one (about using tex) applies to my document, but it's also sure there exist false positives to this rule, and many other false positives may exist simply because if you don't use tex it's much more difficult that people reads your paper.

As regards the other points, i quickly read at them, and i don't see one clearly applying to my paper.

Another interesting link is the following

The Anti-Crackpot Index « viXra log

if you suggest someone is not a real scientist because they did not use TeX then you win 5 points more in the anti-crackpot index.

I don't want to talk about methods to quickly determine if a paper is crackpot or not (or to quickly determine if someone is an anti-crackpot or not). I don't believe in this and i will not reply to this. Actually i think this is misleading and descouraging people who wants to obtain something better and not simply repeat what has already been said, relying on the unproven assumption that nothing better can be achieved.

To judge a paper you simply have to read it and if you don't agree with it clearly state why.

If someone will make interesting observations about the content of the paper, or state a well documented opinion about it, then i thank him in advance. I'll try to reply to this kind of observations when appropriate.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by avonm

Yes, i used msword and not latex. Sorry for this .. i'm considering to convert it to latex but i don't know if and when this will be available. Currently i don't know latex and i have little time available, so a latex version will not be available in a short time.

Since i don't know latex I don't know what is the time required to this conversion.

For these reasons i hope to get a judgement on the content of the paper without having to convert it to latex.

As regards the link posted by Ackbeet it's sure that point one (about using tex) applies to my document, but it's also sure there exist false positives to this rule, and many other false positives may exist simply because if you don't use tex it's much more difficult that people reads your paper.

As regards the other points, i quickly read at them, and i don't see one clearly applying to my paper.

Another interesting link is the following

The Anti-Crackpot Index « viXra log

if you suggest someone is not a real scientist because they did not use TeX then you win 5 points more in the anti-crackpot index.

I don't want to talk about methods to quickly determine if a paper is crackpot or not (or to quickly determine if someone is an anti-crackpot or not). I don't believe in this and i will not reply to this. Actually i think this is misleading and descouraging people who wants to obtain something better and not simply repeat what has already been said, relying on the unproven assumption that nothing better can be achieved.

To judge a paper you simply have to read it and if you don't agree with it clearly state why.

If someone will make interesting observations about the content of the paper, or state a well documented opinion about it, then i thank him in advance. I'll try to reply to this kind of observations when appropriate.

Thanks.

I did look at this briefly when it was originally posted and it showed no obvious signs of crackpottery which is why it is still here (but that means little). However it look as though it would take more time that I had/have available to go through in detail so I cannot make any definitive statements on its content. I had thought someone else might have looked at this more closely and commented.

CB

Originally Posted by avonm

Another interesting link is the following

The Anti-Crackpot Index « viXra log

if you suggest someone is not a real scientist because they did not use TeX then you win 5 points more in the anti-crackpot index.

I would suggest that the compiler of this list had their tongue firmly in their cheek when they compiled this, I can recognise a target or two in there who are generaly rather good at the job.

CB