Re: Does sci.logic have a faq?

Ken Pledger wrote:
>
> In article <42AE2FE0.2875940F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Jim Spriggs <jim.sprigs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Ken Quirici wrote:
> > >
> > > Jim Spriggs wrote:
> > > > ....
> > > > Well, some newsgroups have an official (one might almost say) faq. For
> > > > example sci.math does.
> > >
> > > I didn't realize that. That would be interesting to look at. How
> > > do you access it?
> >
> > Googlization yields this
> >
> > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/
> > ....
>
> Yes, but sci.math actually has _two_ faq sites, the other one
>
> http://db.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/math-faq.html
>
> being perhaps more useful.
>
> Ken Pledger.

What is needed is a "Guide to posters" (maybe it's not a faq that's
called for). Such a guide would point out that problems like

Prove ((p & q) -> r) -> (p -> (q -> r)

are silly unless the poster indicates what methods of proof are
available to him.

Every time I see such a question, I point out that the readers do not
know what tools the writer may use. It seems to make no difference--a
few days later another problem expressed in the same way appears. (Why
should it make a difference? The posters haven't read any earlier
posts, a fortiori they haven't read my earlier posts.) It's driving me
mad.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to rant.

This serious question is raised: what kind of understanding of logic do
these people have if they do not realize that

(1) proofs are proofs within some system; and

(2) there are many possible systems (even if they only study one)?
.