Is "Propositional Calculus" by P. H. Nidditch a good introduction to logic?

Question

I have looked at several books on line regarding logic. Some, though they say they beginning books, are not as far I am concerned, as they launch into elaborate symbology without explanation. This one, Propositional Calculus, by P. H. Nidditch from 1962 seems to be more my level. I find that I can understand the author, which is a more than I can say for any other book I have tried. It is, perhaps, because it is simple. I do not know if this is a good book to put my time into, as I do not know where it leads. I do not have any particular goals in studying logic, but I do not want to put time into something that then has be unlearned. Is this a good book to start?

Answer 1

I recommend Stanford Universities Intro to Logic for self study of symbolic logic, and Greg Restall's short lecture series course if you want to learn from a lecture series instead. I have personally completed Stanford's entire course, and Greg Restall's Introductory Logic.

There are several places on stack exchange that already exist recommending logic textbooks. One such example is user21820's answer here, which has been a very good reference for me in the past.

I cannot vouch for Propositional calculus, by P. H. Nidditch, as this book is behind a paywall for me, and my university library doesn't have it either. I would caution learning exclusively from older books however, as they will most likely not include modern content, such as automated theorem proving.

Edit: I just went through Propositional calculus, by P. H. Nidditch with the link you provided, and it is an excellent book. However I think it would be a poor one to learn from as a first textbook for a number of reasons.

• The notation is bespoke. This means it will be hard to ask questions regarding the text.
• The axioms of its deductive system all involve implication. This will lead to a certain way of thinking that is uncommon. It is not necessarily bad, but you may have trouble describing your mathematical problems to other people if you always think in implications.
• The textbook only covers completeness. It does not include incompleteness.

The textbook has a lot going for it if you can get over the quirks. It is very concise and I appreciate the author proving every theorem rather than just stating them.

In short, it is a textbook I would like to read myself, but not one I would recommend to new students.