| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
On Jun 28, 7:54 am, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> writes:
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> writes:
Can>t answer your question! What does "pussyfooting" mean?
To "walk or act very carefully", as in your "somewhat suggests
... might ... fully ...".
It actually means faffing about, wasting time by being over-cautious.
I>m not a native English speaker, so I>ve taken the liberty of
cross-posting in alt.usage.english. The knowledgeable pedants
frequenting that group will surely shed some light on this pressing
issue.
Pussyfooting (normally "pussyfooting around") is to prevaricate, to fail
to get to the actual action which one is supposed to be performing.
[/quote]
The non-natives might want to know that that>s the British
"prevaricate". In America, "prevaricate" is a synonym for "lie, tell
an untruth", and it>s probably mentioned much more as an example of a
polysyllabic euphemism than it us used. My class clown called me a
prevaricator recently, just to see whether I knew what it meant.
As an American, if someone refers to "someone suggests... might" as
"pussyfooting [around]", I>d think they were using the word in a valid
sense. (I might not fully agree, though. I often think I see fairly
persuasive reasons for making qualified rather than what some call
blanket statements. Just one man>s opinion.)
Have we done musical geniuses lately? How do Robert Fripp and Brian
Eno>s fellow Brits interpret the album title /No Pussyfooting/? As
"no hesitation" or the way I interpreted it, "nothing wimpy"?
--
Jerry Friedman |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ken Quirici
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. C |
|
|
On Jun 26, 3:02 am, Virgil <Vir...@gmale.com> wrote:
[quote]In article
16d76b67-11ec-4322-8f99-8fc131751...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Ken Quirici <ken.quir...@excite.com> wrote:
I think what I>m saying is that arguments of the type you>re
trying to make, about fitting irrationals and rationals into
intervals of various types on the real line, have
insufficient substance to be worth making. They will have nothing
to say about the relative sizes of the sets of irrationals and
rationals because both sets, irrationals and rationals, are
'equally' dense in any interval. To show these two sets of
numbers in an interval have different 'sizes' requires a
different type of argument then any of these 'density'
arguments.
Cantor gave two proofs. His original proof is based on the the existence
of least upper bounds and greatest lower bounds of bounded sets in the
reals, and is fairly technical.
[/quote]
Great reference! Required reading for this thread! - I looked at the
Wikipedia
version of Cantor>s first proof. In particular for WM (no offense WM -
I
hadn>t ever read the proof eiher). I think I actually prefer it to his
second proof which attracts all kinds of strange attempts at
'defeating
the diagonal'. But I suppose the first would attract it>s own
strange attempts at 'defeating the Dedekind cut'.
It>s a nice proof to me because it ingeniously combines density and
countabiity (enumerability). It was published in 1874 - that time must
have
been kind of breeding ground for modern 'foundations of math'.
It>s worth looking up other expressions of the first proof, and
reading
up on the history of math at that time.
[quote]His second proof is based on the uncountability of the set of all
infinite binary values sequences.
I know of no proof based on density arguments alone without at least
invoking the LUB/GLB properties of the reals.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rotwang
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
On 28 Jun, 15:32, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"
<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]
Have we done musical geniuses lately? How do Robert Fripp and Brian
Eno>s fellow Brits interpret the album title /No Pussyfooting/? As
"no hesitation" or the way I interpreted it, "nothing wimpy"?
[/quote]
To my shame, this particular Brit was hitherto unaware of a
collaboration between Fripp and Eno. Is it as good as the lineup
suggests? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Free Lunch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric: Creationists have a point |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:15:47 -0700 (PDT), "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in alt.atheism:
[quote]On 27 jun, 21:45, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:18 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl
wrote:
On 25 jun, 19:31, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Creationists won>t be satisfied until we have two different complete
genealogies which proof that Darwin is a direct descendent from a
flatworm (in the male line off course). If you think that is making a
point, than you are missing the point:-)
Well, I wouldn>t go quite that far. But, you>re not too far off the
mark. Really, the claims of evolutionary theory do go way, way, way
beyond anything we really have clear evidence for.
[/quote]
What utter rubbish. Your ignorance of science is not in any way support
for your opinion. Rather, you show that your opinion show be ignored and
even mocked.
[quote] They are plausible, but far from proven. Why say they>re proven,
when they aren>t?
[/quote]
Scientists tend not to use the word proven, but the evidence is
overwhelming to show that evolution occurs.
[quote]It think has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I admit it has not been proven beyond unreasonable doubt
[/quote]
There will always be someone who is so unreasonable that they will doubt
any fact in existence.
[quote]Life does evolve, appearantly has evolved,
and if no magical interference has occured,
one cannot explain the findings without supposing some kind of
evolution.
The amount of biological and paleological evidence for magical
interference is zero.
By the way did you get the point about the two different complete
genealogies? :-)
[/quote]
Maybe Jerry is just a bacterium. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Jun 28, 7:54 am, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
Pussyfooting (normally "pussyfooting around") is to prevaricate, to fail
to get to the actual action which one is supposed to be performing.
The non-natives might want to know that that>s the British
"prevaricate". In America, "prevaricate" is a synonym for "lie, tell
an untruth", and it>s probably mentioned much more as an example of a
polysyllabic euphemism than it us used. My class clown called me a
prevaricator recently, just to see whether I knew what it meant.
[/quote]
I from answers.com that you speak the sooth, but I never came up against
this one before. I would be surprised if many BrE speakers knew of this
difference.
[quote]As an American, if someone refers to "someone suggests... might" as
"pussyfooting [around]", I>d think they were using the word in a valid
sense. (I might not fully agree, though. I often think I see fairly
persuasive reasons for making qualified rather than what some call
blanket statements. Just one man>s opinion.)
Have we done musical geniuses lately? How do Robert Fripp and Brian
Eno>s fellow Brits interpret the album title /No Pussyfooting/? As
"no hesitation" or the way I interpreted it, "nothing wimpy"?
[/quote]
I would take it as "don>t beat around the bush".
--
David |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
[quote]
Have we done musical geniuses lately? How do Robert Fripp and Brian
Eno>s fellow Brits interpret the album title /No Pussyfooting/? As
"no hesitation" or the way I interpreted it, "nothing wimpy"?
[/quote]
I understand in that particular context Fripp meant it as 'get on with the job
in hand with minimal fart-arsing around' - though that isn>t general BrE usage.
I believe 'no pussyfooting' was one of his dictums for how he liked to work,
regularly repeated - in a strong Dorset accent - during the making of that
album (and hence chosen later as the title). You could, if you wanted to, see
this as one of the roots of Eno>s later systemised approaches to creativity,
such as the Oblique Strategies. I recently digitised my ancient vinyl copy of
'Before and After Science', and started thinking about Oblique Strategies, and
am now compiling my own set of creative prompt ideas. So far I>ve got about
15; my theory is if they aren>t gathered as they arise randomly, they ain>t
worth squat.
DC let me know if you aren>t seeing my attributions, folks.
-- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
[quote]
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
Can>t answer your question! What does "pussyfooting" mean?
To "walk or act very carefully", as in your "somewhat suggests
... might ... fully ...".
It actually means faffing about, wasting time by being over-cautious.
I>m not a native English speaker, so I>ve taken the liberty of
cross-posting in alt.usage.english. The knowledgeable pedants
[/quote]
Who are you calling a pedant?
DC
-- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
LauLuna
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: Intentionality, Gödel and... Logic |
|
|
On Jun 27, 7:58 pm, abo <dkfjd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 6:36 pm, LauLuna <laureanol...@yahoo.es> wrote:
I>m now inclined to think that it all could boil down to one simple
fact: no intensional (with 's', not to be confounded with
'intentional') object (such as a proposition, a concept, a definition)
lies in the domain of the quantifiers it involves. By 'quantifiers' I
mean 'generalized quantifiers', which includes expressions like 'all',
'some', 'most', 'John', 'this', etc.
Presumably "no" is a generalized quantifier. So consider the
proposition P, "No intensional object lies in the domain of the
quantifiers it involves." Does P lie in the domain of the quantifiers?
[/quote]
Well, this is the usual objection to quantifier domain restriction.
Here>s my answer.
There is a number of cases in which universal quantifiers are only
apparent in that they are not really used to make a reference. They
are used to express concept implication as in
(BIV) all propositions are either true or false
which can be re-written:
(BIV*) the concept of proposition implies the feature of possessing
just one of these truth values: true, false
So, the sentence:
(1) No intensional object lies in the domain of the quantifiers it
involves
should be re-written:
(1*) The concept of intensional object implies the feature of lying
outside of the domain of the quantifiers it involves
Regards |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Roland Hutchinson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
Django Cat wrote:
[quote]Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
I>m not a native English speaker, so I>ve taken the liberty of
cross-posting in alt.usage.english. The knowledgeable pedants
Who are you calling a pedant?
[/quote]
At least being called a "knowledgable pedant" beats being called
an "ignorant pedant".
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric: Creationists have a point |
|
|
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
[quote]In alt.religion.christian Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, you>re getting fairly close to the truth here, unlike most
of the host of Yahoos and Bureaucrats on this thread. Relativity is a
philosophical approach not intended to be literally true or false.
Huh? Where did you get this? Got any cites, or or articles, or any
support whatsoever for "Relativity is a philosophical approach" or
"relativity is ... not intended to be ... true or false"?
[/quote]
Does not quantum tunneling enable a great deal of our current chip
performance? If that>s not 'true' then this sentence would exi |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
"Django Cat" <notareal@address.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uts9k.17307$E41.1599@text.news.virginmedia.com
[quote]Have we done musical geniuses lately? How do Robert Fripp and Brian
Eno>s fellow Brits interpret the album title /No Pussyfooting/? As
"no hesitation" or the way I interpreted it, "nothing wimpy"?
I understand in that particular context Fripp meant it as 'get on
with the job in hand with minimal fart-arsing around' - though that
isn>t general BrE usage. I believe 'no pussyfooting' was one of his
..
DC let me know if you aren>t seeing my attributions, folks.
[/quote]
The attributions reappear in my Reply to Group composition window, after
being absent in the Read window. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Aatu Koskensilta
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> writes:
[quote]At least being called a "knowledgable pedant" beats being called
an "ignorant pedant".
[/quote]
Here in sci.logic "pedant" isn>t exactly a term of derision. We>re all
for tedious pedantry on matters logical, ostentatiously parading our
erudition for all to see, in the most boring manner.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophics |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads. |
|
|
[quote]
Have we done musical geniuses lately? How do Robert Fripp and Brian
Eno>s fellow Brits interpret the album title /No Pussyfooting/? As
"no hesitation" or the way I interpreted it, "nothing wimpy"?
To my shame, this particular Brit was hitherto unaware of a
collaboration between Fripp and Eno. Is it as good as the lineup
suggests?
[/quote]
Yes, very much so. I was going to say there were two, 'No Pussyfooting' and
'Evening Star', but Amazon reveals a whole bunch of collaborations. 'No
Pussyfooting' also features a classic cover, with the two musicians sitting in
a room lined with mirrors - http://tinyurl.com/6ooyfm
DC
-- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marshall
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Programming skills required by mathematicians? |
|
|
On Jun 28, 3:38 am, rAgAv <ragav.pa...@googlemail.com> wrote:
[quote]My post mentioned C++, Java, Fortran, OCaml, SML,
Haskell, Prolog, Mercury, SQL, Erlang, Ruby, Python, and Perl.
Thanks Marshall. I checked on the programs you mentioned here and some
of them seem really awesome. But, I don>t know a morsel about them
(except for SQL, which according to my current knowledge of its
basics, seems nothing more than a database storage software). I
especially found SML, Prolog, Mercury and logic programs really
fascinating to learn.
How does one go about learning these programs without enrolling for
formal courses offered by universities? Just by reading introductory
books and practicing them? Are there any other ways?
[/quote]
It is the great blessing and the great curse of the field that
teaching oneself how to program is quite easy.
Reading introductory books and diving right in, following chapter
by chapter with one>s own explorations is an excellent way to
go. Also one can pick up a lot by joining an online community,
and of course having people to ask questions of is great for
that occasional piece that doesn>t quite make sense. For
SML that>s likely to be comp.lang.functional.
The great benefit of this sort of thing is that it makes one
aware of the great diversity that is possible in the choice
of computing primitives. For a given problem, solutions
written in idiomatic C++, SML, and Mercury are going
to look wildly different. Also, each language will have
kinds of problems that it handles with trivial ease, while
the other languages have to sweat. One sees a similar
sort of diversity of systems and their primitives in logic.
Try to avoid falling in love with any one approach.
This advice may be futile since it seems that almost
everyone does it at some point. As long as you wake
up eventually and tell your old flame that you want to
start seeing other compilers, it>s OK.
Since your interest is in math, I want to go back and
repeat something someone said earlier, and recommend
you pay attention to computer algebra systems. These
are likely to be more directly applicable to much of
what you>re going to be doing.
Good luck, and have fun!
Marshall |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
