Bernard Linsky

The distinctive squared dots in Principia Mathematica have two uses, to replace parentheses or brackets to indicate the scope of connectives and operators as well as to symbolize the sentential connective “and”. The explanation of the use of dots in the Introduction shows that the punctuation dots express conjunction by symbolizing the juxtaposition of formulas, following Peano, and so they are always used as punctuation. This paper thus supports Turing’s assertion that conjunction in Principia is expressed by juxtaposition.This analysis avoids Curry’s proposal that an “auxiliary” connective for conjunction should be involved in interpreting the dot notation.

 Reviews c:\users\ken\documents\type\red \rj   red.docx -- : WHITEHEAD’S HARVARD LECTURES Bernard Linsky Philosophy / U. of Alberta Edmonton, ab, Canada t6g 2e5 bernard.linsky@ualberta.ca Paul A. Bogaard and Jason Bell, eds. The Harvard Lectures of Alfred North Whitehead, –: Philosophical Presuppositions of Science. (The Edinburgh Critical Edition of the Complete Works of Alfred North Whitehead.) Edinburgh : Edinburgh U. P., . Pp. liv, . £. isbn: ----. his is the first of a projected multi-volume edition of Alfred North Whitehead’s works. This volume is devoted to notes from students in his lectures at Harvard in –, Whitehead’s first year as a professor at Harvard. This was also Whitehead’s first opportunity to lecture on philosophy T Reviews  c:\users\ken\documents\type\red \rj   red.docx -- : after a career at Cambridge, the University of London, and the Imperial College of Science and Technology where he lectured on mathematics. The lectures were in two courses for the department: Philosophy b, “Philosophical Presuppositions of Science”, which met in Emerson Hall over the two semesters of the – academic year; and a “Seminary”, or seminar, also over both semesters. Whitehead repeated each of the b lectures at Radcliffe College in a modified form. Notes from Emerson Hall were taken by W. E. Hocking and W. P. Bell, and at Radcliffe College by Louise R. Heath, although it appears that Heath, and other female students at Radcliffe, also attended the Emerson Hall lectures. Notes from the seminary were taken by Hocking. The recent discovery of the extensive notes by Bell has made it possible to have two sets of notes for b at Harvard and one for the repetition at Radcliffe. Winthrop Packard Bell had been sent by Royce to study in Germany in  and, after a period of detention as an enemy alien during the war, returned to Harvard, and in – was a lecturer in the Harvard department along with Raphael Demos and Ralph Eaton. In , however, he resigned from Harvard and returned to his native Nova Scotia to a non-academic career . Bell’s detailed and very readable notes are similar in style to the notes that Victor Lenzen made on Bertrand Russell’s lectures in Philosophy c, “Theory of Knowledge”, in . The graduate students at Harvard understood their distinguished professors and wrote quickly and accurately, with little sign of any revisions to the notes after class. Whitehead had published books on philosophical issues in science before arriving in America, including his Enquiry concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge () and The Concept of Nature (), the latter being his Tanner lectures. The move to Harvard allowed Whitehead to turn his mind to issues of metaphysics as informed by physical science and, in particular, to develop his characteristic “Process philosophy” for which he became one of the leading figures in American philosophy by adoption. These early notes are the only record of his developing thought, leading up to the publication in  of Science and the Modern World, based on the Radcliffe version of the lectures, and his Process and Reality in . The editors argue that these notes reveal elements of Process and Reality, refuting the view that the earlier book represents a first, provisional view which was much altered by . Comparisons of individual lectures with passages in the published books are left to the reader and to reviewers who know the progress of Whitehead’s views. Those students of the history of Whitehead’s thought will have ample material to assess the accounts in these extensive notes. The editors have reproduced diagrams which were copied from Whitehead ’s blackboard as he lectured. Footnotes, seldom more than four to a page, comment on matters such as missing notes for particular days, and identify references from the lectures. The notes are numbered by the editors, and  Reviews c:\users\ken\documents\type\red \rj   red.docx -- : typographical devices such as the use of underlining rather than italics, marking deleted material with a strike-through, and vertical marginal lines, do not interfere with reading the notes. Instead they give a sense of reading them directly, with the hard job of transcribing handwriting already done by the editors. The notes are organized...

The official organs of the Association for Symbolic Logic, an international organization for furthering research in logic and the exchange of ideas among mathematicians, computer scientists, linguists, and others interested in this fi eld.

In 1921 Bertrand Russell delivered two lectures on mathematical logic at Peking University. Manuscripts for the lectures have not been found, but two sets of Chinese notes, which were based on a simultaneous oral translation of Russell’s lecturing, were published. The notes are translated into English based on the best readings of both sets. An introduc­tion and notes with a glossary discuss the background and content of the lectures as well as the linguistic difficulties in translating logical terms.

The BULLETIN, the JOURNAL and the REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC are the official organs of the Association for Symbolic Logic, an international organization for furthering research in logic and the exchange of ideas among mathematicians, computer scientists, linguists, and others interested in this fi eld. The BULLETIN encourages submissions of Articles and Communications in all areas of logic, including mathematical or philosophical logic, logic in computer science or linguistics, the history or philosophy of logic, and applications of logic to other fields. The BULLETIN also publishes reviews of publications in logic. Editors

Please follow the submission procedure described at http://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin-guide.html It is recommended that papers be prepared in L A T E X using the ASL's class fi le, especially for manuscripts having extensive symbolic or mathematical notation. This style fi le is available from the ASL's website at http://www.aslonline.org; links from that site provide further information about the BULLETIN and about submitting papers for publication. No print offprints will be supplied but authors will receive a link to a freely accessible electronic pdf of their published article. Print offprints may be purchased if required. Articles present topics of broad interest in a way that is accessible to a large audience. They can be purely expository, survey, or historical articles or they may contain, in addition, new ideas or results or new approaches to old ones. Communications should be announcements of important new results and ideas in any aspect of logic; they may be short papers in their fi nal form or preliminary announcements (extended abstracts, position papers) of longer, full papers that will be published elsewhere. In any case, they should include, in addition to a description of the new results or ideas, enough history, background, and explanation to make the significance of the work apparent to a wide audience. Communications will be quickly refereed and published within six months of the submission of fi nal version. Books for review in the BULLETIN should be sent to ASL,

This is the first English translation of Leon Chwistek’s “Tragedia werbalnej metafizyki (Z powodu książki Dra Ingardena: Das literarische Kunstwerk),” Kwartalnik Filozoficzny, Vol. X, 1932, 46–76. Chwistek offers a scathing critique of Roman Ingarden’s Das literarische Kunstwerk (translated into English as The Literary Work of Art) and of the entire Phenomenology movement. The text also contains many hints at Chwistek’s own philosophical and formal ideas. The book that Chwistek reviews attracted wide attention and was instrumental in winning Ingarden a position as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Lwów in 1933. Chwistek’s alienation from his fellow logicians of the Lvov-Warsaw school is clear from his ridicule of Leśniewski’s project.