How can I get into logic? I really have no idea, so I wish you

>>8008176
Download the PDFs on this site: http://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/

>>8008198
This is a good recommendation, but should probably be preceded by something more introductory, like the author of that guide's intro to formal logic book, which I've heard good things about.
I also liked Barwise and Etchemendy's Language, Proof, and Logic.

Read a liberal tumblr post. They are educated, and you are not.

>>8008205
>should probably be preceded by something more introductory
The PDF reviews the options for introductory books.

The best intro textbook is probably "Logic: The Laws of Truth" by Nicholas Smith.

You can't just teach yourself the basics of formal logic and then dive in. You have to learn about it properly from the ground up like any other field of mathematics.

>>8008231
>"Logic: The Laws of Truth" by Nicholas Smith
This, I've actually read it, even made a thread:
>>8008041

>>8008176
Easy, get a gun and shoot yourself

>>8008176
If you're reading for theory and want to have a solid basis for understanding works of mathematical/symbolic logic (Frege, Russell...), then Copi, Introduction to Logic is a fine start.

If you want to solve problems for school, do deduction and stuff, but also learn bits of theory, Schaum's outlines is a place to go.

my university (and others) have "Logic" by Wilfrid Hodges as the text for the first undergrad logic course

File: gears broke.jpg (107KB, 1363x415px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1363x415px

>>8008176
how can you not into logic? It is the most basic fundamental of the human mind... i hope. Really, im really asking, how can someone NOT have logic?
is this a real thing?

If I wanted to get into linguistics would the wisest move be to begin with Saussure?

>>8008176
AND = both sides of the expression need to be true for the whole expression to be true
OR = one side of the expression needs to be true for the whole expression to be true
NOT = negates the expression (true becomes false, false becomes true)

there ya go dude, it's really not that difficult
next week, how to use parentheses. stay tuned.

>>8009341
That would be a terrible idea.

Saussure is to modern theoretical linguistics as Aristotelian physics to modern General Relativity. Saussure's semiotics has been fully replaced by formal semantics. The only people who dabble in semiotics are people who have mathphobia and deal solely with literary criticism and continental philosophy.

To get into Linguistics you need Logic + Formal Language Theory + Lambada calculus + Philosophy of Language.

File: lmao.jpg (27KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1200x1200px

>>8009371
You forgot XOR my man

>>8009399
>he forgot XNOR
>he forgot NAND
>he forgot NOR

>>8009399
>he forgot 2^4 - |{XOR, AND, OR, NOT}| = 16 - 4 = 12 more logical connectives

>>8009341
>>8009392
Actually, you need precisely none of these things if you're a beginner, just pick up an introductory textbook.

>>8009399
he did ask for a simple introduction
XOR is lesson 3

>>8009416
what?
you can learn and understand every truth table in 30 minutes

>>8009341
Linguistics is a discipline that varies a lot by by country. You may be better off reading someone like David Crystal of you want to get into it. Also discourse analysis is really enjoyable.

>>8009420
it was obviously a joke you idiot

>>8009432
no it wasn't

>>8008176
Learn to do some programming.

>>8009474
yes it was

>>8009404
Only need NAND

>>8009392
I'm the guy you replied to. I read a chapter from Saussure 'Course' for a critical theory class which was to do with the signifier and signified having no innate connection (nothing about the word "tree" resembles the concept of an actual tree was the example I believe). Are you saying this has been disproven? If no, how has Saussure been "fully replaced"?

>>8009429
Any Crystal book in particular?