Joe Niederberger posted Jul 1, 2013 7:36 AM: > > >I would say the "laws of proof" rather than the > "laws of thought". > > I'll defer to any recognized attempt at definition, > but I think "proof" is too narrow, if my glib > statement was too broad. > > Anyway, in context, I simply meant to point out that > logic > claims to apply to much subject matter that is not > mathematical in content. So the notion that "all > logic is mathematics" is not generally held to be > defensible, though if it has adherents, I'm sure > we'll find them here. > I too tend to agree with the claim that "the notion that 'all logic is mathematics' is not (readily) defensible"
Likewise, any claim that 'all mathematics is logic' also does not seem to be (readily) defensible.