Francine F. Abeles

An outsider in the logic community, Hugh MacColl (1837–1909), achieved recognition of his work in logic belatedly in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Together with George Boole, Augustus De Morgan, William Stanley Jevons, Charles S. Peirce, Ernst Schröder, John Venn, Christine Ladd-Franklin and others, MacColl considered logic as a calculus represented by the algebra of logic. In an article published in 1889 in The American Journal of Psychology, Ladd-Franklin wrote, “Nothing is stranger, in the recent history of Logic in England, than the non-recognition, which has befallen the writings of this author….it seems incredible that English logicians should not have seen that the entire task accomplished by Boole has been accomplished by Maccoll [sic.] with far greater conciseness, simplicity and elegance.” Examining some of her work and the work of her contemporaries, I explore the possible reasons she had for holding this opinion.

In a letter to Bertrand Russell, dated 17 May 1905, Hugh MacColl tells how he abandoned the study of logic after 1884 for about thirteen years and how it was the reading of Lewis Carroll’s Symbolic Logic (1896) that ”rekindled the old fire which [he] thought extinct.” From then onwards, he published several papers containing some of his major logical innovations. The aim of this paper is to discuss MacColl’s acquaintance with and appreciation of Carroll’s work, and how that reading convinced him to come back into the realm of logic. There is no evidence that the two men ever met or exchanged any personal correspondence. However, MacColl reviewed in The Athenaeum several of Carroll’s books, mainly on geometry and logic. Often, Carroll replied to MacColl’s criticisms in the following editions of his works. A discussion of these sources provides interesting insights to MacColl’s (and Carroll’s) mathematical and logical investigations.

Hypotheticals, conditionals, and their connecting relation, implication, dramatically changed their meanings during the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century. Modern logicians ordinarily do not distinguish between the terms hypothetical and conditional. Yet in the late nineteenth century their meanings were quite different, their ties to the implication relation either were unclear, or the implication relation was used exclusively as a logical operator. I will trace the development of implication as an inference operator from these earlier notions into the first third of the twentieth century using as the starting point the ideas primarily of R. Whately and W. Hamilton before discussing the work of the transitional logicians, A. De Morgan and G. Boole on these topics. Then we discuss the relevant views of four prominent but relatively unknown nineteenth century British logicians, W.E. Johnson, J.N. Keynes, E.E.C. Jones, and H. MacColl, as well as those of the more influential logicians, W.S. Jevons and J. Venn, closing with a section on ‘implication as inference’ where we explore some key ideas of B. Russell and sketch the work of D. Hilbert, P. Hertz, and G. Gentzen who together are responsible for the development of the modern ideas related to the subjects of this paper.

John Venn and Charles L. Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) created systems of logic diagrams capable of representing classes (sets) and their relations in the form of propositions. Each is a proof method for syllogisms, and Carroll's is a sound and complete system. For a large number of sets, Carroll diagrams are easier to draw because of their self-similarity and algorithmic construction. This regularity makes it easier to locate and thereby to erase cells corresponding with classes destroyed by the premises of an argument, a particularly difficult task in Venn diagrams for more than four sets. Carroll diagrams can represent existential propositions easily, so they are capable of clearly representing more complex problems than Venn's system can. Finally, both Carroll and Venn diagrams are maximal, in the sense that no additional logic information like inclusive disjunctions is able to be represented by them. Carroll's logic diagrams and logic trees constitute his visual logic system

Charles L. Dodgson's reputation as a significant figure in nineteenth-century logic was firmly established when the philosopher and historian of philosophy William Warren Bartley, III published Dodgson's ?lost? book of logic, Part II of Symbolic Logic, in 1977. Bartley's commentary and annotations confirm that Dodgson was a superb technical innovator. In this paper, I closely examine Dodgson's methods and their evolution in the two parts of Symbolic Logic to clarify and justify Bartley's claims. Then, using more recent publications and unpublished letters, I argue that Dodgson approached the elimination problem in class logic differently than his contemporaries, and in doing so, anticipated several important concepts and techniques in automated deductive reasoning. These materials also provide additional insight into his reasons for writing this book