Cantor's Diagonal?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The set theoretic content of the transfinite recursion theorem
Next: Geometry surface area Contact; related to "flatness"; Pedestal-Geometry #386 Correcting Math
From: Transfer Principle on 12 Feb 2010 20:25 On Feb 12, 4:43 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 5:48 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > their opinion that only they [the standard theorists, as opposed > > to the "cranks"] are actually doing mathematics > Who has stated that opinion? Many have expressed the opinion of the years that what their opponents are doing isn't mathematics. A quick Google search reveals a recent post by G.A. Edgar: "Mathematicians---unlike cranks---are (in the vast majority of cases) more worried that the results won't be noticed, and not worried the results will be stolen." The first three words here, "mathematicians -- unlike cranks," strongly suggests that Edgar considers these two groups to be distinguished, so that there are "cranks" and there are the real mathematicians, namely the non-"cranks." He then proceeds to describe one difference between the former and the latter ("cranks" are more likely to worry that their results will be stolen than true mathematicians). Interestingly enough, tommy1729 then proceeded to challenge Edgar's notion that "mathematician" and "crank" are mutually exclusive. The search revealed some old posts as well, including the following 2002 post by Barb Knox: "Seems to whom? Please cite a *single* bona-fide _mathematician_ (_not_ some Usenet crank) who has the slightest problem with the foundations of co-ordinate geometry." (emphasis hers) So according to Knox, "cranks" aren't "bona-fide mathematicians." I've seen many posts over the years expressing the same sentiments as Edgar and Knox. The "cranks" aren't actually doing mathematics, for only they (standard theorists) are doing mathematics. And of course, the "cranks" make the counterclaim that what the standard theorists are doing isn't realy mathematics. Keep in mind that the context of this post is that I'm trying to find a replacement term for "standard theorist," since many posters seem to dislike that phrase. Indeed, MoeBlee himself just questioned my use of the term: > > standard theorist MoeBlee > I'm a standard theorist now? This should give my parents such naches! So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" that MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. The point that I was trying to make is that I definitely will not choose to replace my phrase "standard theorist" with, say, Knox's "bona-fide mathematician," to make statements like: Current: Knox is a standard theorist, while AP is a "crank." Never: Knox is a bona-fide mathematician, while AP is a crank. The standard theorists would love it if I started making statements like the second line above, but I won't. Whatever replacement phrase I use in lieu of "standard theorist," it will never be "bona-fide mathematician" or any name implying that "cranks" aren't actually mathematicians or aren't actually doing mathematics.
From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Feb 2010 20:42 Transfer Principle wrote: > > Keep in mind that the context of this post is that I'm trying to find > a > replacement term for "standard theorist," since many posters seem > to dislike that phrase. Indeed, MoeBlee himself just questioned my > use of the term: > > So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" that > MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. AK seemed to have used the term "conformist", "orthodox", but I don't know if this would help the reality that there are more sides than just "crank" and "standard", or if would help the fact that you your- self seem to have applied different definitions of same same word to different people at different times.
From: Transfer Principle on 12 Feb 2010 21:51 On Feb 12, 5:42 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: > > So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" that > > MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. > AK seemed to have used the term "conformist", "orthodox" Interesting idea. I might consider using either of Aatu's terms. > [You] seem to have applied different definitions of same same word to > different people at different times. My definition of "crank" is always evolving. Whenever several posters criticize my definition of "crank," I try to re-analyze my definition of "crank" in order to come up with a more satisfactory definition. Case in point: Originally I called Y-V a "crank." After several posters complained, they convinced me that Y-V isn't a "crank." So now I don't consider Y-V to be a "crank" anymore.
From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Feb 2010 22:17 Transfer Principle wrote: > On Feb 12, 5:42 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Transfer Principle wrote: >>> So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" that >>> MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. >> AK seemed to have used the term "conformist", "orthodox" > > Interesting idea. I might consider using either of Aatu's terms. Are you then accepting that there are more than just 2 sides ("crank", and, say, "orthodox")? > >> [You] seem to have applied different definitions of same same word to >> different people at different times. > > My definition of "crank" is always evolving. It's hard to make logical arguments if the definition of a word is "always evolving", as a matter of principle. > Whenever several posters > criticize my definition of "crank," I try to re-analyze my definition > of > "crank" in order to come up with a more satisfactory definition. "More satisfactory" to whom? > > Case in point: Originally I called Y-V a "crank." After several > posters > complained, they convinced me that Y-V isn't a "crank." So now I > don't consider Y-V to be a "crank" anymore. Case in point: according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del the "logical" Godel tried to persuade a US judge that he "had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution, one that would allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship"; as well as it's often said Godel was convinced that he had discorverd the proof that God exists. So then would you now change you definition now and call Godel a "crank"?
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 13 Feb 2010 09:15
Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On Feb 12, 5:42�pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Transfer Principle wrote: >> >> > So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" >> > that MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. >> >> AK seemed to have used the term "conformist", "orthodox" > > Interesting idea. I might consider using either of Aatu's terms. Your terminology, contentious as it may be, is not the real issue. You will never be able to characterise the group you refer to as "standard theorists" in terms of mathematical beliefs or some bizarre notion of their "rejecting" formal theories incompatible with ZFC, insisting on presenting mathematical statements in a formal language, what not. Indeed, the defining characteristic of this group has nothing to do with mathematical matters -- rather, they're simply people whose idea of a good time is hectoring people who peddle bizarre ideas in news, endlessly citing boring formal arcana at them, hitting the poor sobs on the head with elementary technicalities, calling them names, pushing their buttons, trying to make them fly off the handle, ostentatiously parading their erudition for all to see and marvel at. Great fun if you enjoy that sort of thing, mind-bogglingly boring and pointless if you don't, but not something the overwhelming majority of mathematicians, whatever their foundational leanings, if any, have any interest in or inclination to. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |