Talk:Algebraic logic

I really don't see how combinatory logic has the expressive power of set theory. I rather feel like it has the expressive power of finite arithmetic. I haven't thought much about how the article's claim can be interpreted, but perhaps the author meant some other kind of combinatory logic, not the s/b/c/k/i system of combinators in lambda calculus.--128.95.133.33 (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed this from the history section, but did not want it to be gone completely. I thought it could be added to a sources section, but wasn't sure where.

For the history of algebraic logic before World War II, see Brady (2000) and Grattan-Guinness (2000) and their ample references. For postwar history, see Maddux (1991) and Quine (1976).

Algebraic logic has at least two meanings:

1. The study of Boolean algebra begun by George Boole, and of relation algebra begun by Augustus DeMorgan, extended by Charles Sanders Peirce, and taking definitive form in the work of Ernst Schröder;
2. Abstract algebraic logic, a branch of contemporary mathematical logic.

Cerberusrex (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

:19th century relation algebra ended with Schroeder, but the topic was revived by Tarski in 1941 with his axioms for the algebra of binary relations, with very strong subsequent development. This is summarized in the thousand-page two-volume treatise 'Relation Algebras' by Steven Givant: vol. 1, Introduction to Relation Algebras, vol. 2, Advanced Topics in Relation Algebras, both Springer 2017. The Introduction to vol. 1 includes 'A Brief History' p. xiv-xxi, describing Tarski as consciously setting out "to revitalize and modernize the subject." 67.249.83.179 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

{{Reply to|CBM}} I suggest reverting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algebraic_logic&type=revision&diff=739617937&oldid=739593509 this] revert. The link was listed under Further reading not References, and there are already other SEP links in that section. --Cic (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

:I think it is possible to distinguish between traditional sources, such as published books and papers, compared to online-only resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia.

:Much of the "further reading" is actually referenced in the article, and should be listed under a different section title. There are Harvard references to Parkinson, Loemker, Brady, Lenzen, and Zalta in the article text. So those are not just "extra" further reading; they are cited in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

:: I tried cleaning up the sections. Everything that are referenced in the article are under references, everything else are under further reading (including the sources that were under external links before). (The difference between references and further reading is fairly arbitrary as most things are simply referensed by saying that more information is in this or this source...)

:: I don't see why one should distinguish between online and offline sources. Distinguishing peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources is meaningful, but a book is not necessarily "more" peer reviewed than a SEP article afaik(?). --Cic (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

::: I do think of SEP as a different kind of source than a book. Even though SEP articles are written by well respected authors, I think of these articles as a different type of work, somehow. But the more concrete reason to separate them is that readers may realize that "external links" will take them directly to other online resources. It is true they could discover this from things listed in the references, but putting things into external links makes the online nature more clear at first glance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)