Teach yourself logic, #1: Basic first-order logic

It is an odd phenomenon. Serious logic is taught less and less, at least in UK philosophy departments. Yet the amount of formally-informed work in philosophy is ever greater. It seems then that many beginning graduate students (if they are not to cut themselves off from working in some of the most exciting areas) will need to teach themselves, solo and by organising reading groups. But what to read? Here then is the first of a planned series of posts covering different areas of logic of interest to philosophers. This instalment covers the basics, up to a good grasp of the elements of classical firstorder logic. Ill assume that youve already done a smidgin of logic of some kind (utter beginners innocent of all logic and worried by symbols might find Guttenplans book a useful preliminary). Two general points Ive made before. (a) Mathematics (and thats what we are talking about here, to be honest!) is not a spectator sport: you should try some of the exercises in the books as you read along to check and reinforce comprehension. (b) It is much the best to proceed by reading a series of books which overlap in level, with the next one covering some of the same ground and then pushing on from the previous one, rather than to try to proceed by big leaps. Again this will help reinforce and deepen understanding as you re-encounter the same material from different angles. OK, with that preamble off we go (and though I dont for a moment expect nearly fifty sets of comments as with the post on fun reads in philosophy, do please add comments either on what youve found works in teaching first-order logic, or on what youve found particularly helpful as a student yourself). All the in-print books should be in any decent university library: order them if they arent in yours! 1. My Introduction to Formal Logic (2003, 2009) is intended for beginners (and has been the first year text in Cambridge): but it in fact already goes further than seems to be covered in whole undergraduate courses in some good UK universities. It was written as a teachyourself book. It covers proposition and predicate logic by trees. It even has a completeness proof for predicate logic, though for a beginning book thats very much an optional extra! 2. Paul Tellers A Modern Formal Logic Primer (1989) predates my book, is now out of print, but is freely available online. It is excellent, and had I known about it at the time (or listened to Pauls good advice when I got to know him), Im not sure that Id have written my own book. Unlike my book, as well as introducing trees this also covers a (user-friendly) version of natural deduction. It is notably user-friendly. 3. David Bostocks Intermediate Logic (1997) goes only slightly further than either Pauls book or my own, and is rather discursive, but it is very well done (and touches on some issues such as free logic which are not dealt with in our book). 4. A notch up in sophistication of approach we find the excellent Ian Chiswell and Wilfrid Hodges, Mathematical Logic (2007). This is now getting a little more mathematical in flavour, but should be manageable at this stage. It deals nicely with natural deduction. 5. Neil Tennants Natural Logic (1978, 1990) is also now out of print, but freely available from the authors website. I still like this a lot as a text on natural deduction (Tennant thinks that this approach to logic is philosophically significant, and it shows); but it isnt always an easy read which is why I list it at this point rather than earlier. 6. You should now be able to cope, by way of wonderful revision summary, with Wilfrid Hodgess Elementary Predicate Logic, in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 1, (ed. by D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner: Reidel, 1984-89). An expanded version of this appears in the 2nd edition of the Handbook. 7. Chiswell and Hodgess book, they say, started life as teaching notes for a course based on

the classic book by Dirk van Dalen, Logic and Structure (4th ed, 2004 at this stage you can omit the last chapter). If you can cope with this book, you are doing just fine! 8. Finally, for desert, look at Raymond Smullyan, First-Order Logic (first published 1968) which is an utter classic: you should certainly now be able to read Parts I and II. This entry was posted in Logic, TYL. Bookmark the permalink. Book note: Tent and Zieglers A Course in Model Theory Book note: Smullyans Theory of Formal Systems

24 Responses to Teach yourself logic, #1: Basic first-order logic

1. Daniel says: May 6, 2012 at 10:11 am I havent read any on your list besides the Bostock (which is very good, though certainly not for a complete beginner); Id suggest Guttenplans Languages of Logic, which I worked through by myself at sixth-form. Halbachs Logic Manual is the current Oxford text and is fairly easy to work through alone also (with exercises online). Reply Peter Smith says: May 6, 2012 at 11:14 am Thanks, Daniel. I should have made it clearer I was thinking of recommendations for people who had done the smidgin of logic (e.g. Guttenplans book) that is all that some places seem to offer. Ill edit to clarify. As to Volker Halbachs book, I still surprise, surprise prefer mine, but it would indeed make a suitable entry point. Reply 2. Nick Smith says: May 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm My new book Logic: The Laws of Truth, just out from Princeton University Press, is intended to be suitable for independent study. It goes from the very beginning up to the early stages of metalogic (e.g. proving some soundness and completeness results, and discussing in some detail, but not proving, the undecidability of first order logic). It also includes a healthy dose of philosophy of logic, as well as the formal material and it covers all the major forms of proof (trees, axiomatic proofs, natural deduction, sequent calculus) in all their major varieties. Its a long book, but the Preface sets out which sections cover the core logic that everyone should know, and which sections cover material of particular interest to certain audiences (e.g. those wishing to prepare themselves to study mathematical logic, or nonclassical logics, or formal semantics, etc.). One thing that will be helpful to independent readers is that the answers to the exercises are online (or at least will be very soon, once the final formatting is completed). Reply 3. Aldo Antonelli says: May 7, 2012 at 9:55 am Great list. I really like Tellers Primer, too. Its great advantage (besides being free) is that it is short. Many authors think that they can make the material more accessible by being prolix, whereas the only result they achieve is boring the reader. I use the Primer regularly when teaching intro courses. Reply 4. Matthew says: May 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Warren Goldfarbs Deductive Logic is superb; I used to recommend it to students who wanted something more than Guttenplan and they all loved it. Its crystal clear, compact without being terse, and makes it all seem so easy. Its a real joy to read. Reply 5. Rowsity Moid says: May 7, 2012 at 4:12 pm Theres a book I first saw mentioned on one of your blog posts (iirc the same one that first mentioned Chiswell and Hodge): Richard Kayes The Mathematics of Logic: A Guide to Completeness Theorems and their Applications. I thought it was one of the more interesting into books Ive seen. Reply Peter Smith says: May 8, 2012 at 12:43 am I think Kayes intended audience is people with a certain mathematical background. For example, the book starts with chapters on Knigs Lemma and on posets; the philosophy graduate student starting out learning some logic might find that a bit alarming. But I certainly agree that this is a very good book, and readers coming with enough mathematical maturity could love it. And even non-mathmos who having got as far as coping with e.g. Hodgess overview article should now be able to read it with profit. Reply 6. Clark says: May 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm Herb Endertons A Mathematical Introduction to Logic is still worthy of honorable mention. It informs the beginner without condescension. One of the virtues of this subject is that each work on the list adds some unique contribution to its reader. Reply Peter Smith says: May 9, 2012 at 2:19 am Agreed on both counts. A bit arbitrarily, Endertons book, like Kayes, is on my draft list for a later instalment, Further into Mathematical Logic, because of the later chapters. But perhaps the first half of the book should indeed be on this introductory list too. Reply 7. AZ says: May 9, 2012 at 9:23 pm I dont know if I am doing right in interpreting serious logic as meaning metalogic. If yes, then the only book that I can think of for self-teaching serious first-order logic is Mathematical logic by Stephen C. Kleene. It was love at first reading: It will be very important as we proceed to keep in mind this distinction between the logic we are studying (the object logic) and our use of logic in studying it (the observers logic). To any student who is not ready to do so, we suggest that he close the book now, and pick

some other subject instead, such as acrostics or beekeeping. Reply 8. Rowsity Moid says: May 10, 2012 at 2:17 pm I looked at Jeffreys Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits in a bookshop the other day, and it seemed interesting. It looked like its approach to incompleteness was to do it for 2nd-order logic, something I dont think Ive seen before. Theres also Machovers Set Theory, Logic and their Limitations, but its been quite a while since Ive opened a copy. Reply Peter Smith says: May 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm I love Jeffreys book. In fact, my book is pretty much the first-order logic part of Jeffreys, done more slowly. If you can manage the fast version on self-study, great! But I wouldnt have written my book if I hadnt found that many readers need to go my slowly at the beginning. Machovers book is very nice too. But this belongs on a later Further into Mathematical Logic list. Reply 9. Edward says: May 10, 2012 at 2:28 pm Dear Peter, What do you think of J C Bealls Logic The Basics and of Geoffrey Hunters Metalogic: An Introduction to the metatheory of Standard First Order Logic? Reply Peter Smith says: May 10, 2012 at 4:24 pm Bealls book which is discussing paracomplete and paraconsistent logics within sixty pages is hardly the place to start. It will be on my reading list for nonclassical logics, but doesnt belong here. Hunters book by contrast is mostly bang on topic (though goes further towards into e.g. Gdelian incompleteness at the end) and I used to like this book a lot. It is perhaps showing its age in some ways (which is why it wouldnt make my current shortlist), but it certainly has its virtues. Reply 10.Luke says: May 11, 2012 at 6:40 am Another intermediate-level text worth putting on this list is Logical Options: An Introduction to Classical and Alternative Logics by John L. Bell, David DeVidi, and Graham Solomon. It covers all sorts of interesting material, including modal, intuitionistic, three-valued, many-sorted, fuzzy, and second-order logics. Reply Peter Smith says:

May 16, 2012 at 9:06 am An intermediate text, yes. And it has some virtues (though when I taught a seminar based on it, I found myself having to write very extensive accompanying handouts). Still, I dont think this belongs to the list Getting your head around basic first-order logic, so much as to another list Going beyond the first-order. Reply 11.ChrisE says: May 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm I have for some years been using Bergmann, Moor, and Nelsons The Logic Book because I like how fully they spell things out. But as Im choosing a book for next year, and reading the above post and also Aldo Antonellis comment, Im thinking that that might not be the greatest virtue. Im not sure how many students actually work through the fairly dense text, and Im not sure it justifies the $USD 130 price tag against, e.g., Teller which I enjoyed as an undergraduate. (It also has frustratingly many errors, though an errata sheet is published.) I wonder if anyone else has views on The Logic Book. Reply Peter Smith says: May 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm I find The Logic Book rather dense (in your word) and stodgy, and Ive never tried using it. But how did your students find it what was the feedback in course questionnaires? I cant imagine they found the book very enticing. The price tag is just outrageous. Reply ChrisE says: May 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm Youre right to deflect the question towards my students evaluations, but while my students responses to The Logic Book have never been glowing, suggestions that it was overly challenging have come roughly at the same rate as they do for the likes of Hume, Mill, Ayer, Hempel, Blackburn and so Ive discounted them, but perhaps prematurely. And they havent experienced other books. For my part, TLBs stodginess was initially a welcome change from having had to teach from Posposel when I was a teaching assistant. It seems its time to revisit whether theres a happy balance between lightness and rigor in Tellers book, Nick Smiths, yours, and others. Reply Aldo Antonelli says: May 23, 2012 at 8:18 am I have used The Logic Book to teach intro courses, and know many people who have likewise used it for the same purpose. I think the book is not bad. The meta-theory chapters are irrelevant for intro classes, and the real strength of the book is the wealth of exercises to choose from. I agree with Peter that the price is outrageous, but I have also heard that the publisher is willing to put together customized version leaving out any unwanted chapters (for a reduced price). Having said that, I find most introductory logic textbooks to be about as good, with minor differences in style of presentation etc. The

subject matter has not changed in decades, for heavens sake, and there is no reason to push new and improved editions on the students. That is why I like Tellers Primer. Its about as good as any other, and you cant beat the price. (I do regret that Paul has posted answers to the exercises, which forces me to make up my own, but, hey, thats why I am being paid the big bucks.) Reply Peter Smith says: May 23, 2012 at 8:43 am Heres one reason for have at least a lot of answers to exercises provided on the web. You can now set class work in the following format. (i) Do such and such exercises. (ii) Then check your answers against the model answers from the web, and self-correct your answers, noting anything you still dont understand. (iii) Hand in your self-marked work, along with the answers to these further exercises [now you are on your own!]. Two-part Worksheets in this format (example here) can very significantly cut the amount of work needed from the poor grad students you are employing as markers! 12.Rowsity Moid says: May 23, 2012 at 8:04 am Colin Howsons Logic with Trees: An Introduction to Symbolic Logic? Reply Peter Smith says: May 23, 2012 at 8:31 am Well, surprise, surprise, I prefer my version of logic-with-trees if only because mine has more worked examples, and we are thinking here particularly about books that work for solo study (as against a classroom text backing up lectures). Reply 13.Chris S. says: June 26, 2012 at 8:45 am Stumbled across this website by accident. What about Rosens Discrete Mathematics and its Applications? Reply 14.