370:
was fairly natural (though notationally complex) generalizations of the standard theory of two player games and the well known isomorphism between sentences written in prenex normal form and games. I'm not saying his work isn't usefull or interesting but there is no reason to believe it is any more so than the many various logics published in mathematics and CS journals. In particular the fact that the computability logic page seems to be mostly papers by him suggests that it is just another academics research program that may or may not turn out to amount to much. I don't have a problem with their being a page somewhere on wikipedia describing it but I'm getting tired or running into links about it whenever I'm editing pages on computability theory. At the very least something should be done to make it clear this isn't some widely accepted/used theory.
412:'s doubts. A researcher who publishes in APAL and TCS is unlikely to bother advertising here. The experts he would want to impress trust journals and not wikipedia. Also, this wiki article is not quite written in a professional style, and is fairly incomplete. Looks more like a student's work to me. And in any case, if scientists stop being lazy or arrogant and start writing on at least their own work for wiki, that would only be better for the quality, breadth and depth of articles. ---- David. November 13, 2005.
84:
74:
53:
283:
22:
185:
158:
195:
404:
I have read 5+ papers on computability logic (over 300 pages altogether!), and I find that stuff superior-quality. It is probably premature to guess whether it is going to eventually make a real impact, but it certainly does deserve the few bytes of wiki space that it takes. It is a shame that there
369:
Well what was his opinion? I'm a graduate student in logic studying computability and I read through a fair fraction of his paper before giving up in disinterest. It seems to be valid work (as I would expect given where it is published) but I saw nothing very earth-shattering about it. Most of it
450:
Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Knowledge will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge.
318:
The characterization of classical logic as a "formal theory of proof" seems to me to be quite wrong, especially given that classical mathematics is largely (entirely?) proof-irrelevant. I think it would be better to characterize classical logic as a "formal theory of truth" and, if proof must be
424:
While I'm sure that whoever did these edits has some investment, careerwise and/or emotional, in the topic, there are reasons to doubt it is
Japaridze, namely whoever it is hasn't done a terribly good job of summarising the topic; I would normally expect a researcher to do a better job than
334:
I find the remarks of the two skeptics below subjective and unsubstantiated. In any case, they have been made three years ago and time has clearly spoken in my favor who at that time criticized those comments. I have just harvested and added a dozen new references. The sheer volume of those
342:
For the same reason, this
Knowledge article should probably be labeled as a stub. It should be made longer and more informative. Including some examples and illustrations would be good. I am not a good writer, so hope somebody else can help here. ---- David. November 10, 2008.
319:
mentioned, to characterize intuitionistic logic (or perhaps intuitionistic type theory) as a "formal theory of proof". Intuitionistic logic is often differentiated from classical logic precisely because it dispenses with the concept of truth in favor of provability. ----
384:
Well, this is a reference work, and will over-inform some people accordiong to their needs. I would agree that there were initially too prominent and too many links to it. I kept an eye on those for a while. Any that are misplaced can be removed, within reason.
347:
This entry strikes me as self-advertising by Mr. Japaridze. There are quite a few "computational logics" like this one; an expert should decide whether Mr
Japaridze's theory is such a break-through as to deserve a single entry to itself.
432:
The edits are gung-ho and lack perspective but they were not abusive and they have stopped. Take care when reintroducing appropriate perspective not to throw away perfectly good content: that cure would be worse than the disease. ----
310:
Today (7 Oct. 2016) I updated the references list. It is long compared with the article itself, but I intend to significantly expand the content of the article. The entry is not marked as a stub but it is in fact a stub.
335:
publications, and the prestige and quality of their venues (as high as one can go), speak for themselves. Note that all but one of the numerous papers from the
References list appeared during the last three years,
428:
I don't follow the detail of
Japaridze's work myself, but a close colleague of mine does, and it is the real thing: solid research work that is well-motivated and perhaps has the potential to make a real
474:
Though I appreciate the list of relevant papers, I've seen such things criticised in the past as not what
Knowledge is for. They should be incorporated into the article so that they are not deleted.
405:
is so little material on logic here, so why not welcome more articles like this one? Look at some other areas, where every little thing, event or word has a separate article devoted to it.
140:
461:
which I understand as saying that once ideas have passed the test of peer review, they are fair game for summarisation on
Knowledge. So Japaridze's work passes that test. ----
216:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
534:
530:
516:
611:
253:
243:
601:
130:
596:
606:
621:
106:
218:
320:
616:
626:
389:
is actually very positive about the underlying work. (By the way your chosen user name will not always get you a fair hearing here.)
512:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
97:
58:
502:
208:
163:
442:
452:
577:
33:
290:
168:
533:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
324:
21:
568:
494:
552:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
540:
451:
But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. See
390:
357:
39:
493:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
83:
486:
312:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
89:
537:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
73:
52:
553:
506:
503:
https://archive.is/20130415174625/http://logcom.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/exn019
200:
560:
441:
PS. A point about the "no research" rule: the interpretation given at the authoritative
519:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
371:
559:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
282:
590:
339:
the following discussions took place. This is a new but rapidly evolving project.
526:
462:
434:
417:
409:
386:
353:
102:
582:
525:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
393:
360:
328:
213:
190:
79:
212:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
184:
157:
15:
507:
http://logcom.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/exn019
281:
497:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
490:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
529:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
264:
515:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
19:
485:I have just modified one external link on
261:
152:
47:
154:
49:
222:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
7:
206:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
612:Low-importance Philosophy articles
14:
602:Low-priority mathematics articles
489:. Please take a moment to review
408:As for self-advertising, I share
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
597:Start-Class mathematics articles
228:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
193:
183:
156:
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
607:Start-Class Philosophy articles
443:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
248:This article has been rated as
231:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
135:This article has been rated as
453:Knowledge:No original research
1:
622:Low-importance logic articles
583:04:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
394:10:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
361:08:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
643:
617:Start-Class logic articles
546:(last update: 5 June 2024)
482:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
254:project's importance scale
627:Logic task force articles
329:07:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
289:
260:
247:
178:
134:
67:
46:
141:project's priority scale
478:External links modified
465:22:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
437:21:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
265:Associated task forces:
98:WikiProject Mathematics
286:
209:WikiProject Philosophy
28:This article is rated
285:
527:regular verification
418:User:Charles Stewart
410:User:Charles Stewart
356:'s opinion on this.
354:User:Charles Stewart
121:mathematics articles
517:After February 2018
487:Computability logic
416:Here is the expert
234:Philosophy articles
571:InternetArchiveBot
522:InternetArchiveBot
287:
219:general discussion
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
547:
308:
307:
304:
303:
300:
299:
296:
295:
201:Philosophy portal
151:
150:
147:
146:
634:
581:
572:
545:
544:
523:
391:Charles Matthews
358:Charles Matthews
272:
262:
236:
235:
232:
229:
226:
203:
198:
197:
196:
187:
180:
179:
174:
171:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
632:
631:
587:
586:
575:
570:
538:
531:have permission
521:
495:this simple FaQ
480:
472:
463:Charles Stewart
435:Charles Stewart
270:
233:
230:
227:
224:
223:
199:
194:
192:
172:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
640:
638:
630:
629:
624:
619:
614:
609:
604:
599:
589:
588:
565:
564:
557:
510:
509:
501:Added archive
479:
476:
471:
468:
467:
466:
458:
457:
439:
438:
430:
426:
414:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
377:
376:
375:
374:
364:
363:
345:
332:
321:174.126.108.52
316:
306:
305:
302:
301:
298:
297:
294:
293:
288:
278:
277:
275:
273:
267:
266:
258:
257:
250:Low-importance
246:
240:
239:
237:
205:
204:
188:
176:
175:
173:Low‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
639:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
613:
610:
608:
605:
603:
600:
598:
595:
594:
592:
585:
584:
579:
574:
573:
562:
558:
555:
551:
550:
549:
542:
536:
532:
528:
524:
518:
513:
508:
504:
500:
499:
498:
496:
492:
488:
483:
477:
475:
469:
464:
460:
459:
456:
454:
448:
447:
446:
444:
436:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
419:
413:
411:
406:
395:
392:
388:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
373:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
344:
340:
338:
331:
330:
326:
322:
315:
314:
292:
284:
280:
279:
276:
274:
269:
268:
263:
259:
255:
251:
245:
242:
241:
238:
221:
220:
215:
211:
210:
202:
191:
189:
186:
182:
181:
177:
170:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
569:
566:
541:source check
520:
514:
511:
484:
481:
473:
449:
440:
420:'s opinion:
415:
407:
403:
346:
341:
336:
333:
317:
313:User:Anastz5
309:
249:
217:
207:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
387:User:Chalst
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
591:Categories
578:Report bug
470:References
225:Philosophy
214:philosophy
164:Philosophy
561:this tool
554:this tool
372:Logicnazi
567:Cheers.—
352:We have
491:my edit
429:impact;
252:on the
139:on the
445:says:
36:scale.
425:this;
337:after
291:Logic
169:Logic
325:talk
535:RfC
505:to
244:Low
131:Low
593::
548:.
543:}}
539:{{
327:)
271:/
167::
580:)
576:(
563:.
556:.
455:.
323:(
256:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
