reply to u/AndreSanch at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/158gy35/im_using_latex_to_create_my_zettel_notes/

This sort of thing has certainly been done before by many. Be careful of going overboard.

If you don't already have a list of most of the common LaTeX math symbols, here's a good starter list, but make sure that your assigned meaning to them from an argumentation perspective is either "standard" or you've written it down for later use/memory. (There's nothing worse than a 10 year old note whose symbols you no longer remember.)

If you haven't done a course in philosophy or logic (something along the lines of Elements of Logic), then that may also help you in terms of many of the common uses/meanings, though there are a variety of meanings to various symbols through time, so take care.

Scribes and scholars over time have used a variety of symbols and annotations to mean various things, some of which were standardized in various contexts. For more on this take a look at some of Evina Stein's work and research on historic texts. Some of this might include:

Steinová, Evina. “Nota and Require. The Oldest Western Annotation Symbols and Their Dissemination in the Early Middle Ages.” Scribes and the Presentation of Texts (from Antiquity to c. 1550). Proceedings of the 20th Colloquium of the Comité International de Paléographie Latine, 2021, 473–89. https://doi.org/10.1484/M.BIB-EB.5.124987.<br /> ———. Notam Superponere Studui: The Use of Annotation Symbols in the Early Middle Ages. Brepols, 2019.<br /> Steinova, Evina. “Technical Signs in Early Medieval Manuscripts Copied in Irish Minuscule.” In The Annotated Book in the Early Middle Ages: Practices of Reading and Writing, edited by M. J. Teeuwen and I. Van Renswoude, 37–85. Brepols, 2017.

For those interested in scratching the surface of some possibilities and history, I might recommend:

Scheinerman, Edward R. Mathematical Notation: A Guide for Engineers and Scientists. CreateSpace, 2011.

Your note about Forte, while cute and clever doesn't necessarily mean that he's an old man, however, so take care about your propositions and what you draw from them or else your system won't hold up for long.

This is a reference to a great book "Beginning Mathematical Logic: A Study Guide [18 Feb 2022]" by Peter Smith on "Teach Yourself Logic A Study Guide (and other Book Notes)". The document itself is called "LogicStudyGuide.pdf".

It focuses on mathematical logic and can be a gateway into understanding Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

I found this some time ago when looking for a way to grasp the difference between first-order and second-order logics. I recall enjoying his style of writing and his commentary on the books he refers to. Both recollections still remain true after rereading some of it.

It both serves as an intro to and recommended reading list for the following: - classical logics - first- & second-order - modal logics - model theory<br /> - non-classical logics - intuitionistic - relevant - free - plural - arithmetic, computability, and incompleteness - set theory (naïve and less naïve) - proof theory - algebras for logic - Boolean - Heyting/pseudo-Boolean - higher-order logics - type theory - homotopy type theory