On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 6:08:28 PM UTC+3, Benoit wrote: > > I think that similarly, the use of Metamath as a pedagogical tool should > be taken with care (to me, it could be used as secondary material in > introduction to logic classes, but not much else). >
I disagree. For me the usual treatise of logic is mostly artificial and this is probably the only universally available tool to make it more concrete. There are attempts to interpret theoretical results in application to digital circuits or programming, but that's not nearly enough. Actually, I'm reading introductory texts and solving examples first and seeking for more deep explanations only after. In fact only this way I was able to really understand some definitions and theorems in textbooks. I think that's why such things as incredible.pm or Jape were invented in the first place. But I agree that it's not for people who has not yet built any semantic model at all, e.g. kids in school. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/66a677a6-1b60-48f0-963f-01bbe78c3e95%40googlegroups.com.
