[FOM] informal poll special terms in logic

[Pym, David]

1) pure versus applied logic


Archaic


2) pure versus applied model theorem


Specialized

3) recursive versus computable


Specialized

4) valid sentence versus valid argument


Specialized

5) Fratur N to name a structure rather Roman N




--
Professor of Information, Logic, and Security
Head of Programming Principles, Logic, and Verification
University College London

Fellow and University Liaison Director
Alan Turing Institute

d.pym at ucl.ac.uk<mailto:d.pym at ucl.ac.uk>
www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/people/D.Pym.html<http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/people/D.Pym.html>
www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/D.Pym/<http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/D.Pym/>








On 6 May 2017, at 15:39, John Baldwin <jbaldwin at uic.edu<mailto:jbaldwin at uic.edu>> wrote:

Reply with a vote to jbaldwin at uic.edu<mailto:jbaldwin at uic.edu>.  Feel free to ignore some items.

Do not reply to the list unless you really have something to say.
I will summarize the results and perhaps kick of a discussion after I have tallied the results.

Do you regard the following distinctions as `archaic'  or `specialized'  (i.e. only used by some areas of logic) or `unknown to you'?

1) pure versus applied logic

2) pure versus applied model theorem

3) recursive versus computable

4) valid sentence versus valid argument

5) Fratur N to name a structure rather Roman N

John Baldwin



John T. Baldwin
Professor Emeritus
Department of Mathematics, Statistics,
and Computer Science M/C 249
jbaldwin at uic.edu<mailto:jbaldwin at uic.edu>
851 S. Morgan
Chicago IL
60607
_______________________________________________
FOM mailing list
FOM at cs.nyu.edu<mailto:FOM at cs.nyu.edu>
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20170508/94c11f13/attachment-0001.html>