Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • For those who aren't familiar with the great but tragic story of Principia and Russell's quest for the foundation of math (spoiler: there is none), there's a really great graphic novel called Logicomix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicomix I haven't read it in probably ten years, but it's one of those books and stories I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about, for whatever reason.
    by nitsuaeekcm
  • Instead of spending time beating one’s head against Russell and Whitehead, I would advise reading Homotopy Type Theory (aka the HoTT Book). Dependent types are cool and mind-expanding, but higher inductive types are downright mind-altering.

    The Little Schemer/Typer could be used as a preparatory text to gear one up for HoTT.

    It also has the advantage of being a bit more applicable to functional programming languages, maybe even more so than Mac Lane’s Categories for the Working Mathematician (which I sometimes see suggested to mathematically-inclined Haskell novices).

    by TimorousBestie
  • I have a copy and like it much. However, i was always partial to Frege's Begriffschrift. His notation was really creative. It's a shame Russel's deflation of that project has sentenced it to the rubbish heap of history.
    by voidhorse
  • The notation for avoiding parentheses is interesting, and I've thought that it might be useful in programming languages.

    To illustrate, suppose you have a non-associative operator $. Rather than write a$(b$c), you can write a$.b$c - the . makes the $ before it be lower precedence on the right side. More dots make things be even lower precedence.

    So, for example,

        a$b .$: x$y .$. p$q
    means

        (a$b) $ ((x$y) $ (p$q))
    At least, that's my recollection. It's been over fifty years since I read (significant parts of) it...
    by radford-neal
  • You might be interested in Kurt Goedel’s extended book review wherein he proves that Principia cannot do what it sets out to do, nor can any such system.

    I do teach PM when I teach theory of computation, but largely to tell the story of how we discovered the limits to computation.

    by pngwen
  • If you can read this book cover-to-cover, you're an absolute hero. Sometimes I wonder if they inserted a big logical error in the middle just to troll people under the assumption nobody would bother to read it.
    by glimshe
  • For an accessible introduction before beginning this, consider his _Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy_:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Mathematical_P...

    and for ease of reading see the various PDF versions at:

    https://people.umass.edu/klement/imp/

    by WillAdams
  • "Principia Mathematica is an odd book, worth looking into from a historical point of view as well as a mathematical one. It was written around 1910, and mathematical logic was still then in its infancy, fresh from the transformation worked on it by Peano and Frege. The notation is somewhat obscure, because mathematical notation has evolved substantially since then. And many of the simple techniques that we now take for granted are absent. Like a poorly-written computer program, a lot of Principia Mathematica's bulk is repeated code, separate sections that say essentially the same things, because the authors haven't yet learned the techniques that would allow the sections to be combined into one."

    - Mark Dominus (https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html)

    by tristramb

Explore Birbla archives