New essay on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Solutions manual to Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 3E Norman E Dowling
Next: Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
From: Frederick Williams on 30 Sep 2009 10:12 Marshall wrote: > > On Sep 29, 10:13 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sep 29, 9:26 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > > > > > Nobody in their right mind cares about Google Groups ratings. > > > > > Only insane people care what others think of them? That doesn't > > > seem right. > > > > Why would anyone think only insane people care what others think of > > them? > > Did you honestly not understand that I was rephrasing your claim? > Whether or not you agree that the rephrasing was faithful to > the original, you must have understood that was what I was > doing. Didn't you? If you did, then presumably your response > was intended to annoy, and no further discussion seems > likely to be fruitful. If by some chance you didn't, then read my > earlier post as a rephrasing of your quoted statement; a > meaningful rebuttal would involve an explanation of why > my rephrasing was not faithful to the original. Aatu Koskensilta referred to Google Groups ratings not to other expressions of what people think about people. -- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 30 Sep 2009 10:52 Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes: > If you did, then presumably your response was intended to annoy, and > no further discussion seems likely to be fruitful. It's quite impossible to have a fruitful discussion with me. This fruitless exchange of ours is, to my mind, as bizarre as the following fictional fragment. Dr. Freitnautzer: "Nobody in their right mind eats at McDonald's." F.P. Gwollop: "Only insane people choose not to die of starvation? That can't be!" Dr. Freitnautzer: "Why would anyone think that?" And so it goes. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 30 Sep 2009 11:04 Scott H <zinites_page(a)yahoo.com> writes: > I did not write in the tone of an outburst, though this world > collectively seems to try to give them to me. It comes as a pinch in > my heart, followed by auditory hallucinations and, eventually, > retching. I'd venture to say that over five years, my suffering has > been comparable to being shot one hundred times. This all sounds pretty awful. I hope you get whatever help you need. > And yet people still try to pull my strings, thinking they haven't > gone too far. I suggest you try not to take comments in news personally. I also suggest it's a good idea to set all this stuff about suffering, people pulling your strings, etc. aside when discussing logical and mathematical matters. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 30 Sep 2009 11:10 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > The beauty a of mathematical truth doesn't require a mass of people to > appreciate it. If - but only if - one sees a mathematics/reasoning > truth, one doesn't really need anybody else to appreciate it. One sits in a dark corner, in total solitude, marveling at the private mathematical truths one's discovered? Yours may be a very romantic ideal but to me it sounds quite dreadful. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Scott H on 30 Sep 2009 15:15
On Sep 30, 11:04 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > I also suggest it's a good idea to set all this stuff about > suffering, people pulling your strings, etc. aside when > discussing logical and mathematical matters. I know. It was mostly a message to the one-starrer. I don't think he understands how much danger he and others are creating. A thousand straws sum to the weight of a brick. At any rate, I have proposed that G refers to its 'reflection' or Goedel code, which I have called G' instead of t. A number of people have told me that G and G' are the same statement. At this point, I won't even deny that they are: I'll simply call G' the statement to which G refers, proceed to G'', etc., and call it endless reference. Does G = G' = G'' ... ? I'll leave that to you. |