Science and Technology news... :: View topic

translogi · Guest

for people in the UK

tomorrow: (heard it only yesterday via the BLC British logic colliqium

Melvyn Bragg>s "In our Time" program this Thursday 9>th Oct. (BBC
Radio 4 9.00am and 9.30pm) has Hilbert>s program, Goedel>s
Incompleteness Theorems and Physics as its theme. Bragg interviews
Marcus du Sautoy, John Barrow, and Philip Welch. (Philip says that he
is *not* responsible for the blurb on the BBC website!)

for everybody else,

think this talk will be downloadable soonish via

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/
9 am is i think 8am GMT (not really sure)

Frederick Williams · Guest

translogi wrote:
[quote]
for people in the UK

tomorrow: (heard it only yesterday via the BLC British logic colliqium

Melvyn Bragg>s "In our Time" program this Thursday 9>th Oct. (BBC
Radio 4 9.00am and 9.30pm) has Hilbert>s program, Goedel>s
Incompleteness Theorems and Physics as its theme. Bragg interviews
Marcus du Sautoy, John Barrow, and Philip Welch. (Philip says that he
is *not* responsible for the blurb on the BBC website!)

for everybody else,

think this talk will be downloadable soonish via

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/
9 am is i think 8am GMT (not really sure)
[/quote]
It was a disappointment (as In Our Time usually is). Something puzzled
me: Barrow (I think it was he) claimed that Hilbert proved that his
version of Euclidean geometry was complete and consistent. I thought
that it was Tarski who proved that his (different) formulation of
Euclidean geometry was decidable. Presumably Hilbert>s is, in some
sense that can be made precise, the same as Tarski>s. I>ll go further
and say that, though Hilbert may well have been concerned about the
consistency of his geometry; pre Godel the question of completeness
would not have arisen. Had someone pointed out to Hilbert that
such-and-such a truth of Euclidean geometry wasn>t provable from his
axioms, he would simply have added an axiom to make it provable. The
possibility of "essential" incompleteness did not arise pre Godel.

On a more general point, I do wish hat the BBC didn>t think that every
time that mathematics gets mentioned du Sautoy has to be wheeled out (it
used to be Ian Stewart). There are other mathematicians in the UK,
there are even other logicians and Bragg could have talked to three of
them.

--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.

translogi · Guest

On 9 Oct, 11:22, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net>
wrote:
[quote]translogi wrote:

for people in the UK

tomorrow: (heard it only yesterday via the BLC British logic colliqium

Melvyn Bragg>s "In our Time" program this Thursday 9>th Oct. (BBC
Radio 4 9.00am and 9.30pm) has Hilbert>s program, Goedel>s
Incompleteness Theorems and Physics as its theme. Bragg interviews
Marcus du Sautoy, John Barrow, and Philip Welch. (Philip says that he
is *not* responsible for the blurb on the BBC website!)

for everybody else,

think this talk will be downloadable soonish via

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/
9 am is i think 8am GMT (not really sure)

It was a disappointment (as In Our Time usually is). Something puzzled
me: Barrow (I think it was he) claimed that Hilbert proved that his
version of Euclidean geometry was complete and consistent. I thought
that it was Tarski who proved that his (different) formulation of
Euclidean geometry was decidable. Presumably Hilbert>s is, in some
sense that can be made precise, the same as Tarski>s. I>ll go further
and say that, though Hilbert may well have been concerned about the
consistency of his geometry; pre Godel the question of completeness
would not have arisen. Had someone pointed out to Hilbert that
such-and-such a truth of Euclidean geometry wasn>t provable from his
axioms, he would simply have added an axiom to make it provable. The
possibility of "essential" incompleteness did not arise pre Godel.

On a more general point, I do wish hat the BBC didn>t think that every
time that mathematics gets mentioned du Sautoy has to be wheeled out (it
used to be Ian Stewart). There are other mathematicians in the UK,
there are even other logicians and Bragg could have talked to three of
them.

--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I liked the program but i do see that there were some errors in it.

Was wondering about a remark that was made:
Godel was a Platonist. (he believed in the realms of mathematical
forms)

While in the God proof he is presented as believer in Nomads
(but the latter was just a literary idea)

Guess you cannot expect from this kind of program to be 100% correct.

Chris Menzel · Guest

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:03:08 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com>
said:
[quote]...
It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was the
fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all.
[/quote]
Perhaps because the idea of "challenging the Godellian project" is about
as silly as, say, "challenging the Euclidean project" of classical
geometry or "challenging the Leibnizian/Newtonian project" of the
calculus. Abysmally ignorant as you are of the actual mathematics,
however, no doubt you have some screwball idea of what Goedel>s project
was.

[quote]Any project that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made in
the formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.
[/quote]
Case in point.

John Jones · Guest

translogi wrote:
[quote]On 9 Oct, 11:22, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net
wrote:
translogi wrote:

for people in the UK
tomorrow: (heard it only yesterday via the BLC British logic colliqium
Melvyn Bragg>s "In our Time" program this Thursday 9>th Oct. (BBC
Radio 4 9.00am and 9.30pm) has Hilbert>s program, Goedel>s
Incompleteness Theorems and Physics as its theme. Bragg interviews
Marcus du Sautoy, John Barrow, and Philip Welch. (Philip says that he
is *not* responsible for the blurb on the BBC website!)
for everybody else,
think this talk will be downloadable soonish via
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/
9 am is i think 8am GMT (not really sure)
It was a disappointment (as In Our Time usually is). Something puzzled
me: Barrow (I think it was he) claimed that Hilbert proved that his
version of Euclidean geometry was complete and consistent. I thought
that it was Tarski who proved that his (different) formulation of
Euclidean geometry was decidable. Presumably Hilbert>s is, in some
sense that can be made precise, the same as Tarski>s. I>ll go further
and say that, though Hilbert may well have been concerned about the
consistency of his geometry; pre Godel the question of completeness
would not have arisen. Had someone pointed out to Hilbert that
such-and-such a truth of Euclidean geometry wasn>t provable from his
axioms, he would simply have added an axiom to make it provable. The
possibility of "essential" incompleteness did not arise pre Godel.

On a more general point, I do wish hat the BBC didn>t think that every
time that mathematics gets mentioned du Sautoy has to be wheeled out (it
used to be Ian Stewart). There are other mathematicians in the UK,
there are even other logicians and Bragg could have talked to three of
them.

--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I liked the program but i do see that there were some errors in it.

Was wondering about a remark that was made:
Godel was a Platonist. (he believed in the realms of mathematical
forms)

While in the God proof he is presented as believer in Nomads
(but the latter was just a literary idea)

Guess you cannot expect from this kind of program to be 100% correct.
[/quote]

It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was the
fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all. Any project
that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made in the
formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.

David C. Ullrich · Guest

In article
<22058e60-ffd1-407c-bb90-618e2351fffa@u27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
translogi <wilemien@googlemail.com> wrote:

[quote][...]
I liked the program but i do see that there were some errors in it.

Was wondering about a remark that was made:
Godel was a Platonist. (he believed in the realms of mathematical
forms)

While in the God proof he is presented as believer in Nomads
[/quote]
Actually just about everybody believes in nomads...

[quote](but the latter was just a literary idea)

Guess you cannot expect from this kind of program to be 100% correct.
[/quote]
--
David C. Ullrich

Frederick Williams · Guest

"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
[quote]
In article
22058e60-ffd1-407c-bb90-618e2351fffa@u27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
translogi <wilemien@googlemail.com> wrote:

While in the God proof he is presented as believer in Nomads

Actually just about everybody believes in nomads...
[/quote]
I wonder/wander if he means monads!

--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.

John Jones · Guest

Chris Menzel wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:03:08 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
said:
...
It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was the
fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all.

Perhaps because the idea of "challenging the Godellian project" is about
as silly as, say, "challenging the Euclidean project" of classical
geometry or "challenging the Leibnizian/Newtonian project" of the
calculus. Abysmally ignorant as you are of the actual mathematics,
however, no doubt you have some screwball idea of what Goedel>s project
was.

Any project that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made in
the formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.

Case in point.

[/quote]
The respondents on the programme seemed ok with the idea that Godel was
about liar paradox stuff.

translogi · Guest

On 10 Oct, 11:21, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net>
wrote:
[quote]"David C. Ullrich" wrote:

In article
22058e60-ffd1-407c-bb90-618e2351f...@u27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
translogi <wilem...@googlemail.com> wrote:

While in the God proof he is presented as believer in Nomads

Actually just about everybody believes in nomads...

I wonder/wander if he means monads!

--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.
[/quote]
OOPs you are right monads ()a la leibniz ) Sorry

John Jones · Guest

Chris Menzel wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:27:44 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> said:
Chris Menzel wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:03:08 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
said:
...
It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was
the fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all.
Perhaps because the idea of "challenging the Godellian project" is
about as silly as, say, "challenging the Euclidean project" of
classical geometry or "challenging the Leibnizian/Newtonian project"
of the calculus. Abysmally ignorant as you are of the actual
mathematics, however, no doubt you have some screwball idea of what
Goedel>s project was.

Any project that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made
in the formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.
Case in point.
The respondents on the programme seemed ok with the idea that Godel
was about liar paradox stuff.

Sure, properly framed. There is, in Goedel>s proof, an *analogy* with
"liar paradox stuff", the critical difference being that the notion of
truth in the latter -- which is essential to the generation of the
paradox -- is replaced by provability in the former. In the liar
paradox, you get a sentence that is true if and only if it is not true,
a genuine contradiction. In Goedel>s proof, you get a sentence that it
is true (in the natural numbers) if and only if it is not provable (in
the system at hand), which is perfectly consistent.
[/quote]
You haven>t given an argument. To make the argument stick and bear fruit
you must say what is meant by 'provability' and why you think it differs
from the notion of 'truth' in the liar paradox.

Without this explanation what may appear as an argument can be no more
than a restatement or translation of what has already been said.

[quote]How it is that your psychology permits you to shoot your mouth off about
Goedel>s work in a public forum despite your abject ignorance of its
substance is beyond me.
[/quote]
It>s not beyond you. You>re already out of your depth.

David C. Ullrich · Guest

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:01:25 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]Chris Menzel wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:27:44 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> said:
Chris Menzel wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:03:08 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
said:
...
It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was
the fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all.
Perhaps because the idea of "challenging the Godellian project" is
about as silly as, say, "challenging the Euclidean project" of
classical geometry or "challenging the Leibnizian/Newtonian project"
of the calculus. Abysmally ignorant as you are of the actual
mathematics, however, no doubt you have some screwball idea of what
Goedel>s project was.

Any project that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made
in the formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.
Case in point.
The respondents on the programme seemed ok with the idea that Godel
was about liar paradox stuff.

Sure, properly framed. There is, in Goedel>s proof, an *analogy* with
"liar paradox stuff", the critical difference being that the notion of
truth in the latter -- which is essential to the generation of the
paradox -- is replaced by provability in the former. In the liar
paradox, you get a sentence that is true if and only if it is not true,
a genuine contradiction. In Goedel>s proof, you get a sentence that it
is true (in the natural numbers) if and only if it is not provable (in
the system at hand), which is perfectly consistent.

You haven>t given an argument. To make the argument stick and bear fruit
you must say what is meant by 'provability' and why you think it differs
from the notion of 'truth' in the liar paradox.
[/quote]
That would be a reasonable request, except for the fact that these
are completely standard notions, clearly defined in any book
on elementary mathematical logic.

You>re just confirming his diagnosis of complete and utter ignorance
(as though it were not clear already).

[quote]Without this explanation what may appear as an argument can be no more
than a restatement or translation of what has already been said.

How it is that your psychology permits you to shoot your mouth off about
Goedel>s work in a public forum despite your abject ignorance of its
substance is beyond me.

It>s not beyond you. You>re already out of your depth.
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)

John Jones · Guest

David C. Ullrich wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:01:25 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com

You haven>t given an argument. To make the argument stick and bear fruit
you must say what is meant by 'provability' and why you think it differs
from the notion of 'truth' in the liar paradox.

That would be a reasonable request, except for the fact that these
are completely standard notions, clearly defined in any book
on elementary mathematical logic.

You>re just confirming his diagnosis of complete and utter ignorance
(as though it were not clear already).

[/quote]
You are not following the etiquette of good argument and you know it.
What a tiresome fellow you are.

You MUST say what is meant by provability and why it is not the same as
truth if you want to argue against a proposal that places their
relationship in doubt.

Chris Menzel · Guest

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:01:25 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> said:
[quote]Chris Menzel wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:27:44 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> said:
Chris Menzel wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:03:08 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
said:
...
It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was
the fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all.
Perhaps because the idea of "challenging the Godellian project" is
about as silly as, say, "challenging the Euclidean project" of
classical geometry or "challenging the Leibnizian/Newtonian project"
of the calculus. Abysmally ignorant as you are of the actual
mathematics, however, no doubt you have some screwball idea of what
Goedel>s project was.

Any project that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made
in the formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.
Case in point.

The respondents on the programme seemed ok with the idea that Godel
was about liar paradox stuff.

Sure, properly framed. There is, in Goedel>s proof, an *analogy* with
"liar paradox stuff", the critical difference being that the notion of
truth in the latter -- which is essential to the generation of the
paradox -- is replaced by provability in the former. In the liar
paradox, you get a sentence that is true if and only if it is not true,
a genuine contradiction. In Goedel>s proof, you get a sentence that it
is true (in the natural numbers) if and only if it is not provable (in
the system at hand), which is perfectly consistent.

You haven>t given an argument. To make the argument stick and bear fruit
you must say what is meant by 'provability' and why you think it differs
from the notion of 'truth' in the liar paradox.

Without this explanation what may appear as an argument can be no more
than a restatement or translation of what has already been said.
[/quote]
And again, case in point. Because you are profoundly (and, to my
ceaseless, amazement, willfully) ignorant of even the rather elementary
concepts of mathematical logic that constitute the backdrop of Goedel>s
theorem, you have no idea that both "provability" and "truth" are
rigorously defined and, so defined, provably distinct. Thus, you create
a pseudo-issue in your own apparently uneducable mind where there is in
fact none. Do you not realize how foolish this makes you look?

David C. Ullrich · Guest

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:21:23 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:01:25 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com

You haven>t given an argument. To make the argument stick and bear fruit
you must say what is meant by 'provability' and why you think it differs
from the notion of 'truth' in the liar paradox.

That would be a reasonable request, except for the fact that these
are completely standard notions, clearly defined in any book
on elementary mathematical logic.

You>re just confirming his diagnosis of complete and utter ignorance
(as though it were not clear already).

You are not following the etiquette of good argument and you know it.
What a tiresome fellow you are.

You MUST say what is meant by provability and why it is not the same as
truth if you want to argue against a proposal that places their
relationship in doubt.
[/quote]
Nope. It>s like this is sci.geography and some bozo who pretends to
be analyzing things much more deeply than everyone else insists
that the United States is located in Antarctica. It>s not true that
his respondents MUST answer his stupid question about ok,
where _is_ the US then.

With almost every post you demonstrate that you simply know
nothing about the subject you>re talking about. Nobody has
any obligation to teach the basics of the subject to you.

And when you make posts explaining why logic cannot
distinguish between and and or nobody>s ever going to
be impressed at what a deep thinker you are. People
are just going to laugh. Sorry, that>s the way it is.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)

John Jones · Guest

David C. Ullrich wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:21:23 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:01:25 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
You haven>t given an argument. To make the argument stick and bear fruit
you must say what is meant by 'provability' and why you think it differs
from the notion of 'truth' in the liar paradox.

That would be a reasonable request, except for the fact that these
are completely standard notions, clearly defined in any book
on elementary mathematical logic.

You>re just confirming his diagnosis of complete and utter ignorance
(as though it were not clear already).

You are not following the etiquette of good argument and you know it.
What a tiresome fellow you are.

You MUST say what is meant by provability and why it is not the same as
truth if you want to argue against a proposal that places their
relationship in doubt.

Nope. It>s like this is sci.geography and some bozo who pretends to
be analyzing things much more deeply than everyone else insists
that the United States is located in Antarctica. It>s not true that
his respondents MUST answer his stupid question about ok,
where _is_ the US then.

With almost every post you demonstrate that you simply know
nothing about the subject you>re talking about. Nobody has
any obligation to teach the basics of the subject to you.

And when you make posts explaining why logic cannot
distinguish between and and or nobody>s ever going to
be impressed at what a deep thinker you are. People
are just going to laugh. Sorry, that>s the way it is.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
[/quote]
If the talkshow respondents as Godel enthusiasts were comfortable with
making an analogy with the liar paradox, it doesn>t help to say that
they ought not to be comfortable with that analogy because the
definitions show that.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Logic Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3