My Spoken Dialogic.

The pun in the title didn't work out exactly as well as I'd like, but it's super pretentious, so I'm going to keep it.
Through this week in 165 we're learning the basics of logic in CS. I'm a Cog Sci student first and foremost, so I've had to take a logic course in the past, PHL245, Modern Symbolic Logic. I should probably also note that circumstances led me to not finish the course, BUT it's something.

At very least, it's enough to note that some of the symbols and concepts that are being used in each respective logic system is a bit different. The universal (all) and existential (some) quantifiers are the same but this business with sets, and set interaction...this is new to me.

My professor for Minds and Machines (PHL342) conjured up logic that looks much like that seen in 165. Brian Cantwell Smith did in fact have his origins in information and computer science, so this probably makes a lot of sense. Symbols for implication and negation, for example, differ slightly in the symbolic logic that I had encountered before, but all of the underlying ideas and structures are more or less the same.
...because they'd have to be.
...It's logic.
...That's the point.
Going between the two seems more like speaking two dialects of the same language. The dialectical difference is rather small, and is less like the spoken languages of two nations separated by a vast desert, and more like the vernacular of two towns on opposite sides of a river. What my issue is right now is just picking up on the new lingo of the town that I'm in now. All the concepts seem really straightforward to me, but there's a bit of a weakness when it comes to the symbols. A vital weakness that's just waiting for a test or evaluation to come along and target it specifically.

...I should probably do something about that,