This summer I was at LC2015, the big European logic conference (it was great). I was sitting listening to a talk with one of my logic buddies when the speaker mentioned “deontic logic”, which is a fancy Greek name for the logic of obligations.
A thought popped into my mind; I turned to my friend and whispered, “you ought to study deontic logic”. Ha ha ha! A self-referential statement!
My friend wasn’t exactly convulsed with laughter but never mind. A whole research program opened up before me – self descriptive “studying <adjective> logic” sentences.
I found two more right away:
I believe you are studying doxastic logic.
I know you are studying epistemic logic.
That exhausted my knowledge of Greek based technical terms; but more examples came to mind:
Odds are you are studying probabilistic logic.
You have been studying temporal logic.
You are 73% studying fuzzy logic.
You are studying paraconsistent logic and you are not studying paraconsistent logic.
And then of course
It is possible that you are studying modal logic.
And its generalization
Maybe perhaps possibly you are studying multimodal logic.
At that point I had to start thinking. Hmmm … intuitionistic logic? One of its properties is that double negation is not identity. So…
You aren’t not studying intuitionistic logic.
Which I understand to mean that no one can catch you not studying intuitionistic logic … or something like that.
How about linear logic? One of its distinguishing properties is that you count multiple occurrences of a hypothesis. This gives
You are studying linear logic, you are studying linear logic.
Working backwards this way I built quite a list, each more hilarious than the previous one. I leave it as an exercise to figure out how they work (some are subtle).
I observed you studying quantum logic.
I have hard evidence that you are studying constructive logic.
One of the things you are doing is studying second order logic.
(combinator logic) you study.
You look puzzled; you must be studying abductive logic.
You are studying and the topic is monadic logic.
You deny it, but I say you are studying dialectical logic.
Enough. Can you do better? More examples, or better sentences? Leave them in the comments and I’ll post any that make sense.