> We posted [[answers to Week 1's homework|exercises/assignment1_answers]].
(**Week 3**) Thursday 12 February 2015
-*We will continue to develop these notes over the next few days.*
> Topics:
[[Arithmetic with Church numbers|topics/week3_church_arithmetic]];
-[[More on Lists|topics/week3 lists]] (expanded on Sunday);
+[[More on Lists|topics/week3 lists]];
[[What is computation?|topics/week3_what_is_computation]];
-Reduction Strategies and Normal Forms (in progress);
-[[Unit and its usefulness|topics/week3 unit]] (posted on Wednesday);
-[[Combinatory Logic|topics/week3 combinatory logic]] (revised on Monday and Tuesday);
+[[Reduction Strategies and Normal Forms|topics/week3_evaluation_order]];
+[[Unit and its usefulness|topics/week3 unit]];
+[[Combinatory Logic|topics/week3 combinatory logic]];
[[Homework|exercises/assignment3]]
> Also, by this point you should be able to handle all of *The Little Schemer* except for Chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 9 covers what is going on under the hood with `letrec`, and that will be our topic for next week. You can also read Chapter 4 of Hankin on Combinatory Logic.
> Now you can read Sections 3.1 and 6.1 of Hankin; and browse the rest of Hankin Chapter 6, which should look somewhat familiar.
+> If you're reading along in the Pierce book, we've now covered much of the material in his Chapters 1-7.
+
> We posted [[answers to Week 3's homework|exercises/assignment3_answers]].
+(**Week 5**) Thursday 26 February 2015
+> Topics:
+[[Simply-typed lambda calculus|topics/week5 simply typed]];
+[[System F|topics/week5 system F]];
+Types in OCaml and Haskell (will be posted someday);
+Practical advice for working with OCaml and/or Haskell (will be posted someday);
+[[Homework|exercises/assignment5]]
+
+> *There is some assigned reading for our next meeting.* This comes in two batches. The first batch consists of [[this footnote|readings/kaplan-plexy.pdf]] from Kaplan's *Demonstratives*. Also recommended, but not mandatory, is [[this selection|readings/king-on-schiffer.pdf]] from Chapter 4 of Jeff King's 2007 book *The Nature and Structure of Content*. The second batch consists of [[this paper|readings/rieppel-beingsthg.pdf]] from Michael Rieppel, a recent Berkeley Philosophy PhD, on Frege's "concept horse" problem. Also recommended, but not mandatory, is [[this selection|readings/king-on-logicism.pdf]] from Chapter 5 of King's book. (It reviews and elaborates his paper "[Designating propositions](http://philpapers.org/rec/KINDP)".)
+
+> If you're interested in the scholarly background on Frege's "concept horse" problem, here is [an entry point](http://philpapers.org/rec/PROWIF).
+
+> If you're reading along in Hankin, you can look at Chapter 7.
+
+> If you're reading along in the Pierce book, the chapters most relevant to this week's discussion are 22 and 23; though for context we also recommend at least Chapters 8, 9, 11, 20, and 29. We don't expect most of you to follow these recommendations now, or even to be comfortable enough yet with the material to be able to. We're providing the pointers as references that some might conceivably pursue now, and others later.
+
+(**Week 6**) Thursday March 5
+
+> We will be discussing the readings posted above.
+
+> Topics: [[Kaplan on Plexy|topics/week6_plexy]]; King on that-clauses and "the proposition that P"; Rieppel on Frege and the concept HORSE
+
+(**Week 7**) Thursday March 12
+
+> Topics: [[Combinatory evaluator|topics/week7_combinatory_evaluator]]; Lambda evaluator; [[Introducing Monads|topics/week7_introducing_monads]] (updated Fri 20 Mar); [[Homework|exercises/assignment7]]
+
+> We posted answers to [[Week 4's homework|exercises/assignment4_answers]] and [[Week 5-6's homework|exercises/assignment5_answers]].
+
+
+(**Week 8**) Thursday March 26
+> Topics: [[Safe division with monads|topics/week8_safe_division_with_monads]]
<!--
We've added a [[Monad Library]] for OCaml.
developed in computer science and that linguists and philosophers ought to
know, or may already be unknowingly trying to reinvent.
-Philosphers and linguists tend to reuse the same familiar tools in
+Philosophers and linguists tend to reuse the same familiar tools in
ever more (sometime spectacularly) creative ways. But when your only
hammer is classical logic, every problem looks like modus ponens. In
contrast, computer scientists have invested considerable ingenuity in