LaTeX for Logicians — any suggestions?
I’ve just been (belatedly) sprucing up LaTeX for Logicians again, and repairing a regrettable number of broken links. Some of those broken links were due to changes at CTAN; but a few were due to people who had useful pages on their personal websites now apparently going off the radar.
The only new addition is a link on the Natural Deduction page to the CTAN archive for lplfitch, a package “for typesetting Fitch-style proofs a la Language, Proof, and Logic, by Jon Barwise and John Etchemendy.” (It was originally written by John Etchemendy, with modifications by Dave Barker-Plummer and Richard Zach, and looks excellent.)
I know a lot of people out there use LaTeX for Logicians (for example, that page of info about Natural Deduction packages was visited over 7000 times in the first six months of the year). And I very rarely get any corrections, suggestions for additions, etc. Which I guess is a good sign (presumably the pages are quietly succeeding at doing what they are intended to do). However, if you’ve been meaning to send me any ideas, requests, pointers towards new stuff, etc., now’s the time, while L4L is at the front of my mind for a day or two. So, over to you …
newest »
My take is that I would like to take some of what I like in each package and replace what I don't particularly care for - mix and match. :)
For example, I don't particularly like the \fa \fa, etc of Kluwer's package but prefer the layout of it and Selliger's package to that of lplfitch. I think that, if Selliger's package had nested *environments* for sub-proofs it would just about be ideal. Overall, I find Selliger's package the best for my needs.
Mark