Course talk:CPSC522/Higher Order Logic

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
   The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 4.5
   The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. N/A
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
   It is correct. 5
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
   It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
   It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19.5 Comments: This page is great. Only one concern is that some of the concepts used may not fit with 522 students' background. For example one may not familiar with topology. Another tiny issue is that the sentence "Considering the expressivenes of higher order logic relative to first order, the induced question, then, is “Why not use higher order logic all the time?” should be under subsection "Limitations of Higher Order Logic".

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
   The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 4 
   The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4
   It is correct. 5
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
   It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
   It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 4
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

Comments:

• Maybe you can link to the "Predicate Calculus" wiki page (e.g. in the "Builds on" section), which goes into detail what predicates, quantifiers, etc. are.
• I like how you included the links to learn more about unification, since you only briefly touched on a few unification problems.
• Perhaps you can provide some concrete examples in the "Fundamental Results" section, such as an example of a successor function in second order logic.

Thanks for the feedback. I introduced more examples (in the form of proofs) in the "Fundamental Results" section as suggested. Also, FYI "first order logic" is just another name for "Predicate Calculus" so the original document already addressed your first point. I've made the connection more explicit to avoid this misunderstanding in the future.

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear.5
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5 - I don’t think adding pseudo code would be beneficial here
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 4 - There aren’t any links to other pages in the wiki but I’m not sure there are any existing pages that would make a useful link
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 1 - I couldn’t find any references or links to external sources
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

The page is well written and the motivation is clear. Discussing the limitations is and the applications are good sections to have. The only big issue is there needs to be some citations or at least some referenced material in the bibliography. Other than that I only have a few suggestions

• There are some template sentences left over in the page which should be removed, and empty sections should also be removed.
• "Title" should probably be changed to "Higher Order Logic"

Thanks for the feedback. I've added some references (with both internal and external links) and will include citations as needed. The residual template sections have also been removed.