logics

Automation works well for first-order logics, whilst proof assistants work with higher-order logics.

Until recently, nobody had a handle on program logics for imperative languages, or reasoning techniques for operational semantics.

OWL is powerfull but hard like all description logics, they ar e tools that very very few developers really master.

But there are many logics that can be used to reason about stochastic and probabilistic dynamics.

What in your opinion are the alternatives to Hoare-style program logics that are general-purpose enough to work for arbitrary programming languages?

But constructive logics don't incorporate notions of time or communication (of proof, or in general).

And conversely, various logics can be defined using typed lambda calculus (see Curry Howard isomorphism).

They delay effects by composing abstract logics and then ask for a result.

Understanding complexity, computability and modern logics is pretty satisfying, I'm personally in love the Godel's incompleteness theorem.

I'm not trying to prove anything, just to not that non-termination leads to suspicious looking logics.

I guess my question is, why set theory, as opposed to building [new] logics on top of other semantic models (e.g.

There are various approaches to converting back-and-forth between different logics, eg.

Queue for managing network request If you don't want to put all the network reqeust logics in a "Manager" class, STNetTaskQueue may be your choice.

That's different to saying that P is true or P is false; confusing "not-P is true" with "P is false" is exactly the distinction that logics, such as constructive logic, that avoid LEM try to avoid.

The "Inductive Logic Programming" chapter in "Prolog Programming for AI" (best intro Prolog book imo) is very interesting and has lead to a couple of entries in my todo list:) Non-Standard logics are also very fascinating.