Editor’s note: The letter is in the Prior archive box 3 at the Bodleian Library in Oxford and has been transcribed and commented by David Jakobsen and Martin Prior.
Letter from J.J.C. Smart to A.N. Prior,
May 16, 1955
Thï¡nks for your letter. The experts here didnât think thï¡t the erythemï¡ nodosum
possibly come from Mary and the children
the time wï¡s too long ï¡go. Iâm
ï¡wfully sorry I didnât
mï¡ke thï¡t quite cleï¡r; I donât like the thought of Mï¡ry worrying. I ï¡lso hï¡d ï¡ chï¡t with the professor
here (strictly ï¢etween him ï¡nd me, ï¡nd the fï¡ct thï¡t I hï¡d it strictly ï¢etween you ï¡nd me; wouldnât
want to [affect]
ibilities of the practicing medical men!) He was reassuring. He said
most people hï¡ve hï¡d this without erythemï¡ nodosum ï¡nd if I hï¡dnât hï¡d the letter Iâd proï¢ï¡ï¢ly
had known [sic] about the lung
enlargement. He agrees with your man about present
dangers for Mary and the children. What a pity I cancelled my plane booking. It will be too late
now, ï¡nd perhï¡ps it is wise not to come on other grounds. Iâll ï¢e pretty ï¢usy in August, if ï¡ll goes
well, without conferences + ANZAAS
t I must try and se
e if I can sl
ip over to Christchurch for a
few days at any rate then. (Especially if my X
ray is favorable.) I do wish I could see you more
these big distances are.
respect for your superior judgment I wish you werenât
lecturing on Time stuff for your
John Locke lecturers. As I see it the choice (after
) of Quine, Wang
matl. Logic. I
really wish your John Locke lecturers were on Modal Logic, many
valued systems, etc., including
your stuff on
Å in J.
and so on.
It is so aesthetically pleasing and
it is fundï¡mentï¡l sort of stuff. With your time stuff youâll get involved in side issues, even strï¡ight
philosophy, ï¡nd not in the stuff thï¡t will do Oxford most good. Thï¡tâs
what I think. What does
Gilbert think? I really think that you should keep your best stuff for Oxford, and that I am inclined
to think is your modï¡l logic stuff. (Youâll ï¢ring it in in the other, ï¢ut it wonât stï¡nd out so neï¡tly).
Why not save the time di
stinction stuff for a small book, and keep the more (logically) fundamental
stuff for Oxford. Mind you, Iâm proï¢ï¡ï¢ly wrong ï¡nd you right ï¢ut this is whï¡t I think (very
Thanks for your proof of CLCMpp
CMpLp. There wa
s a slip of the pen: you had
1. CLCMpp CMpLp
Editorâs note: The letter is in the Prior ï¡rchive ï¢ox 3 ï¡t the Bodleiï¡n Liï¢rï¡ry in Oxford ï¡nd hï¡s ï¢een trï¡nscriï¢ed ï¡nd
commented by David Jakobsen and Martin Prior.
Editorsâ note: This is the most likely rendering of Smï¡rtâs hï¡ndwriting.
m is an inflammatory skin
condition that happily does not usually last too long.
Editorsâ note: It is hï¡rd to see whï¡t Smï¡rt writes here.
Editorsâ note: The Austrï¡liï¡n & New Zeï¡lï¡nd Associï¡tion for the Advï¡ncement of Science.
note: Martin Prior notes here that due to
Mï¡ry, Mï¡rtin ï¡nd Annâs
in 1954 Arthurâs lectureship
was deferred one year and Hao Wang took his place in 1954
Editorsâ note: Smï¡rt is referring to: Turquette, A. R. Review: A. N. Prior, Modï¡lity
de Dicto and Modality de re . J.
Symbolic Logic 20 (1955), no. 2, 167.
Editorsâ note: The trï¡nscription is not certï¡in here.
2. CL Cpq CLpLq
1 x RL = 3
3. LCLMpp CMpLp
2 p/LCMpp q/CLpLq
4. CLLCMpp LCMpLp
It should be [referring to 3]
(I only mention this for proof reading purposes in case the same slip occurs in something
rof. of medicine (strictly ï¢etween him ï¡nd me ï¡nd you ï¡nd me) doesnât think I should treï¡t
myself too much as an invalid. He thinks walks would be OK,
, etcâ¦ ï¢ut proï¢ï¡ï¢ly
hockey. So Iâll get ï¡ little mild exercise
, not enough to get tired, and my moral
should rise again.
(Lack of exercise always has a bad psychological effect on me!).
Thanks very much for your kind investigations with your TB expert. What he said sounds very
much like what our Prof. of medicin
said. Anyway I very much appreciate it.
I find the example of page 9 of Kleen difficult to get the
of. Call the deduction in the
ï¢ottom of p. 90 â
â, thï¡t on top of p. 91
then Iâve grï¡sped his proof. 1
17 on p. 92.
so I donât quite figure it out. (Not thï¡t there ï¡re 5 groupings ï¡ï¢ove corresponding to the
length 5 of the deduction of p. 87).
Editorsâ note: There is ï¡n ï¡rrow in the letter here.