[[Arithmetic with Church numbers|topics/week3_church_arithmetic]];
[[More on Lists|topics/week3 lists]] (expanded on Sunday);
[[What is computation?|topics/week3_what_is_computation]];
-Reduction Strategies and Normal Forms (in progress);
+[[Reduction Strategies and Normal Forms|topics/week3_evaluation_order]] (posted on Monday 23 Feb);
[[Unit and its usefulness|topics/week3 unit]] (posted on Wednesday);
[[Combinatory Logic|topics/week3 combinatory logic]] (revised on Monday and Tuesday);
[[Homework|exercises/assignment3]]
> Topics: [[!img images/tabletop_roleplaying.png size="240x240" alt="Hey, no recursing"]]
[[Yes, recursing|topics/week4_fixed_point_combinators]];
[[More about fixed point combinators|topics/week4_more_about_fixed_point_combinators]];
-Towards types (in progress)
+Towards types (in progress);
+[[Homework|exercises/assignment4]]
> 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
+
+> *Note*: Jim will be updating and expanding the lecture notes by Tuesday, but doesn't want to delay any longer letting you have access to the drafts we (in part) presented from in seminar. But do come back and re-read the pages when the expanded versions are posted.
+
+> Topics:
+[[Simply-typed lambda calculus|topics/week5 simply typed]];
+[[System F|topics/week5 system F]];
+Types in OCaml and Haskell;
+Practical advice for working with OCaml and/or Haskell (all will be posted soon);
+[[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]]; Interpreter for Lambda terms; [[Introducing Monads|topics/week7_introducing_monads]] (updated Fri 20 Mar); [[Homework|exercises/assignment7]]
+
+<!--
+(**Week 8**) Thursday March 26
+-->
<!--
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