2012

There’s a new version of the self-help Guide downloadable from the Teach Yourself Logic page (added: updated to Version 7.1, Nov. 26).

Heavens this is time consuming! — but having (as it now seems, foolishly) started, I guess I should do the best job on this that I can. Anyway, there are new sections on extensions of classical logic (second order, plural, free) and deviations from the classical paradigm (intuitionism, relevance logics). There also is a major structural change to the Guide. It is now going to be in two big chapters, one on the basics and one on more advanced stuff. Partly this is to make it all look less daunting (the idea is that any grad student working in logic-relevant areas ought to know the sort of stuff that is in Ch. 1, and then the enthusiasts for this or that area can pursue the relevant sections of Ch. 2). And partly this is to acknowledge the fact more advanced work in one area can often presuppose familiarity the basics in other areas.

All suggestions for improvement welcome as always. I’d welcome in particular any additional introductory suggestions on Second-Order Logic, and on Intuitionistic Logic. At the moment, on Second-Order Logic, I start by mentioning the article

• Herbert Enderton, ‘Second-order and Higher-order Logic’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-higher-order/

A new page for the Guide is now here on the site. And a new version of the Guide (Version 6.0, 6th November) can be downloaded from there.

I’ve just written a (partial) draft of another chunk of my developing Teach Yourself Logic reading guide. As always, comments and suggestions will be very welcome indeed. I’ve tried to restrain myself, but this segment of the Guide is already rather long. But here goes …

A standard part of any logician’s education will be an encounter with first-order Peano Arithmetic as a non-trivial example of a rigorously formulated axiomatic system, and with Gödel’s epoch-making proof of the incompleteness of PA, and indeed of any nice enough theory that can ‘do’ enough arithmetic.

Gödel’s 1931 proof uses facts about primitive recursive functions (a subclass of the computable functions), and you certainly need to know about them. A more general treatment of the idea of an effectively computable function (arguably capturing all of them) was developed a few years later, is of the greatest intrinsic interest and also throws more light on the incompleteness phenomenon. So there’s a choice to be made. Do we look at things in a roughly historical order, proving initial versions of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem before moving on to look at the general treatment of computable functions. Or do we do some of the general theory first? Here are two books to start with which take the two different routes:

• Peter Smith, An Introduction to Gödel’s Theorems (CUP 2007) does things in the historical order. Don’t be put off by the series title ‘Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy’: putting it in that series was the price I paid for cheap paperback publication. This is still quite a meaty logic book, with a lot of theorems and a lot of proofs, but I hope rendered very accessible.
• Richard Epstein and Walter Carnielli, Computability: Computable Functions, Logic, and the Foundations of Mathematics (Wadsworth 2nd edn. 2000) does computability theory first. This is a nicely introductory book, clearly done, with lots of interesting historical information too in Epstein’s 28 page timeline on ‘Computability and Undecidability’ at the end of the book.

As you’ll already see from these two books, this is a delightful area. Elementary computability theory is conceptually very neat and natural, and the early Big Results are proved in quite remarkably straightforward ways (just get the hang of the basic ‘diagonalization’ construction, the idea of Gödel-style coding, and one or two other tricks and off you go …).

A notch up in difficulty, here’s another book that focuses on the general theory of computation:

• George Boolos, John Burgess, Richard Jeffrey, Computability and Logic (CUP 5th edn. 2007). This is the latest edition of an absolute classic. The first version (just by Boolos and Jeffrey) was published in 1974; and there’s in fact a great deal to be said for the 1990 third edition as being the best. The later versions have been done by Burgess and have perhaps lost elegance and some of the individuality, and the level of difficulty has become uneven. But this is still great stuff, and you will want to read the first two parts of the book at an early stage, perhaps being more selective when it comes to the last part, ‘Further Topics’.

An interestingly unusual route to the incompleteness phenomenon is traced in

• Melvin Fitting, Incompleteness in the Land of Sets (College Publications, 2007). Short, also fairly elementary, elegant and very clear.

After these, where should you go? Here are three stand-out suggestions:

• Nigel Cutland, Computability: An Introduction to Recursive Function Theory (CUP 1980). This is a rightly much-reprinted classic and is beautifully put together. It does have the look-and-feel of a maths text book. But if you can cope with Boolos and Jeffrey, you can manage this.
• Raymond Smullyan, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems (Oxford Logic Guides, OUP, 1992) is another modern classic. Terse and elegant, proving some beautiful slightly abstract versions of the incompleteness theorems.
• Richard Kaye, Models of Peano Arithmetic (Oxford Logic Guides, OUP, 1991) is a third classic, connecting up the treatment of arithmetic with material on model theory, and telling us a great deal about non-standard models of PA (models which contain more than the ‘real’ natural numbers). And this reveals more about what PA can and can’t prove — though be warned that this book is rather more challenging in places.

That is probably more than enough about the logical basics. The literature on computability is huge, however, and I haven’t yet mentioned any books that approach things from a computer-science rather than a pure-logic perspective, and deal inter alia with the fascinating topic of computational complexity. So I had better touch on a few of those. But first, here’s an aside mentioning a few more books with a logical flavour, at very varied levels:

[At this point, in small print, I go on to mention (with shorter comments)

1. Rósza Péter, Recursive Functions  (1967).
2. Hartley Rogers, Jr., Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability (1967)
3. Herbert B. Enderton, ‘Elements of Recursion Theory’, in J. Barwise, ed., Handbook of Mathematical Logic (1977).
4. Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Classical Recursion Theory , Vol. 1 (1989)
5. Martin Goldstern and Haim Judah, The Incompleteness Phenomenon (1998).
6. A. Shen and N. K. Vereshchagin, Computable Functions (2003).
7. Per Lindström, Aspects of Incompleteness (2003). Terse, not always reader-friendly, but well repays the effort.
8. Torkel Franzén, Inexaustibility (2004).
9. S. Barry Cooper, Computability Theory (2004).

As I mentioned, computer scientists are — surprise, surprise! — interested in the theory of computation, and their books tend to have a different slant. It is certainly worth knowing at least a little about the topic of computational complexity. I’ll mention just three places to start:

• Michael Sipser, Introduction to the Theory of Computation (Thomson, 2nd edn. 2006) is a standard and very well regarded text. It aims to be very accessible and to take its time giving clear explanations of key concepts and proof ideas. I think it is successful. The last third of the book is on computational complexity.
• Ofed Goldreich, P, NP, and NP-Completeness (CUP, 2010). Short, clear, and introductory stand-alone treatment of computational complexity.
• Ashley Montanaro, Computational Complexity, notes for a 2012 lecture course here in Cambridge. This has a useful quick guide to further reading, so I don’t need to add anything further here.

And that’s surely more than enough! But any suggestions for additions? deletions? improvements?