Have you ever played "WFF 'N PROOF: The Game of Modern Logic?" (Yes, Whiffenpoof fans, it was developed at Yale.)
When I was in elementary school, I found a copy of it at home. It purports to be a fun game, one that happens to result in teaching you something called "propositional calculus." It's designed for kids as young as six. I've tried four times to read the instruction manual for this game, and after all these years -- I'm 33 now -- I've only gotten to page 12. Of 168!
It is actually a collection of 21 games, each building upon the lessons of previous ones. I think I understand the first lesson, which teaches you to recognize WFFs, or "well-formed formulas." As the games progress, you improve your logical thinking skills. If anyone ever makes it to the 21st game, that person will be an absolute genius of logical thinking.
J-Fav and I get a kick, though, out of the 1960s linear-programming narrative in the four-page introduction:
Although the WFF 'N PROOF games were designed primarily to be fun -- to be an autotelic activity that learners would voluntarily spend time doing for its own sake -- they were also meant to provide practice in abstract thinking and to teach some mathematical logic. To the extent that WFF 'N PROF is autotelic, [Jeez, do I need to drag out my dictionary after all? -g] it will be played merely because it is fun to play - regardless of the fact that something useful is being learned in the process.
...There are a total of thirteen ideas introduced and used repeatedly in the play of the WFF 'N PROOF games: the definition of a WFF, the definition of a Proof, and eleven Rules of Inference (the Ko, Ki, Co, Ci, R, Ao, Ai, No, Ni, Eo, and Ei Rules). These thirteen ideas, which comprise one formulation of the system of logic called "propositional calculus" (abbreviated 'PC'), are presented very gradually as a learner proceeds through the series of twenty-one games. [zzzz...]
Any of you ever seen this game? It actually looks fun, and sort of kooky at the same time.
(If so, maybe you could tell me if the symbol "A" ("or"), as in "Apq", means "at least one of the following" versus "only one of the following." That is, Boolean OR is different from English OR.)
Hmm, if I were to make it to page 23, I could ponder: "The statement of what is proved by P2 is merely: From 'K-p-Kqr' and 'Kqr', it is valid to infer 'r'."