I need to flex my formal logic muscles prior to graduate school--I've had a dry spell in my logic practices while finishing my mathematics degree, particularly since the logic used in analysis, algebra, and topology is a pale shadow of my formal logic studies.

I am looking to practice my predicate, modal, and axiomatic logic. I'd ask my logic mentor, but he is retired emeritus, and is unavailable.

  • It would help if you indicated what are your research interests. There are also different approaches (purely theoretical, applied), and points of view (philosophy, math, natural science, computer science, etc.) May 23 '15 at 10:46
  • I was hoping graduate school would help answer that question. My university has slim pickings when it comes to formal logic courses and does not offer any mathematical logic classes. I have experience in philosophical logic: I've taken both basic natural deduction systems (sentential and predicate) and a survey of logics that covered modal, Aristotelian, axiomatic, relevance logic, semantics, and a few other topics. I've never studied mathematical logic formally.
    – Asher
    May 25 '15 at 2:51

Peter Smith—who is or has been a user of this forum—has a discussion article posted called Teach Yourself Logic 2015: A Study Guide (PDF, iv + 94 pp. Last updated 1 Jan 2015). It's on his website. It lays out his informed opinions of the relative merits of the various books and resources for self-study, including the good books mentioned by Mauro Allegranza in his answer.


You can try with :

and :

  • I second the endorsement of Sider, particularly if your graduate studies will be in Philosophy. Sider's book contains a nice presentation of the important parts of the major theoretical apparatus you'll need to do serious work in the field. There are other more advanced treatments of each of the topics he addresses, but they go into issues that seldom arise for practicing philosophers outside of logic/philosophy of math.
    – user5172
    May 28 '15 at 0:35
  • I like Sider's book, too, though the proof style is not the one I would choose. (He uses axiomatic proofs rather than natural deduction.) Smith is interestingly rather cooler on it, rather more critical. Jun 2 '15 at 22:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.