Talk:Logic Theorist

Theorem 2.85 of PM

The article states correctly that the LT proved the PM 2.85 theorem in a new and surprising way. However, as far as I can tell this is not related to the Isosceles triangle proof. Hence I removed the link to the Isosceles page. There is more reference on this issue in this book page 52 but I have no idea how to properly add this as citation. If anyone can help with adding this citation it would allow less confusion for future readers. Javajavaproxy (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

**

I think there's a famous story about this software discovering a surprising new proof of an old theorem of Euclidean geometry. If that's true, could someone add the specifics to this article? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think some of it already is, in the Principia Mathematica bit. I first read about it in Hofstadter's book, Godel Escher Bach, which goes into a description of the proof. --C S (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Name of the program/article?

I'm currently working (slowly) on the history section of Automated theorem proving. I base this partially on Davis, Martin (2001), "The Early History of Automated Deduction", in Robinson, Alan; Voronkov, Andrei (eds.), [[Handbook of Automated Reasoning]], vol. 1, Elsevier {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)) and Bibel, Wolfgang (2007). "Early History and Perspectives of Automated Deduction" (PDF). KI 2007. LNAI (4667). Springer: 2–18. Davis calls the program in question "Logic Theory Machine". Bibel mentions it, but not by name. But he cites Newell, A., Shaw, J.C., Simon, H.A. (1956), which is titled "The Logic Theory Machine", as is the RAND technical report by Newell and Simon listed in the "External Links" section. Are there any better sources who call it "Logic Theorist" or should we rename the article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it has been referred to by both names. Feel free to change ... ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Defective PDF

I've added a better PDF to external links. The other one is missing 20 or so pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCDecaux (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

From the opening paragraph: "It would eventually prove 38 of the first 52 theorems in Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica". But near the end of the History section, there's a different (and contradicting) sentence: "Logic Theorist soon proved 38 of the first 52 theorems in chapter 2 of the Principia Mathematica." So what's correct - the program proved the first 38 (of 58) theorem of the whole book, or 38/58 theorems of the second chapter? (the latter seems more likely to me, but I'm not sure) GalPedy (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's chapter 2 by internal evidence (the reference to 2.85 in the letter to Bertrand Russell). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Example code

It would be good if this article included the actual program media, or code, or numbers or whatever it existed on. Or described it.

The article describes its history and implications but not what it actually is.

85.148.213.144 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The program was originally written on flashcards. I will look for it -- an image would be nice. --- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're asking about the algorithm, the article describes it -- heuristic search, over a space of logical expression, using rules of inference for transitions. The logical expressions were stored in a list data structure, similar to LISP. The inference rules manipulated the list structures. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Tried to fix the style

@Barbarr:

I fixed a couple of peacock terms in the article here and there, but otherwise I wasn't able to find anything particularly un-encyclopedic. Could you find a few more examples?

I pulled the tag. Please ignore my edit comment -- I was trying to write "because I can't find anything else" and I hit the return key by accident. It came out "because I can" (!) I wasn't trying to be flip or dismissive. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The changes look good - sorry for sending you on a goose chase there, haha. Yeah it was just the tone of a few words, nothing huge - I should've made the style warning a bit more descriptive. Barbarr (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)