« first day (102 days earlier)      last day (638 days later) » 

David Reed
David Reed
3:59 AM
are you referring to the plato link at the top?
 
user131753
@DavidReed: No.
 
David Reed
David Reed
I just see my quote there to the side
ah
you are referring to the articles from earlier transcript?
 
user131753
Yes.
 
user131753
More specifically the references that were provided after this comment.
 
David Reed
David Reed
Ah I see, yes I have to admit I had forgotten about those. I will read them though I can assure you. I think last time when 820 got in here we were siderailed topic wise
Do you have a text by chance that follows a similar vein you could recommend?
 
user131753
4:05 AM
No.
 
David Reed
David Reed
I don't know the degree to which you've been privied to prior convs ive had, but in terms of being able to digest new material I am handicapped and will be until early Feb when I restart some of my meds.
it*
that came out not the way I had intended. I will not be able to focus until early feb
At that point I can promise I will dive into all of this
Are there any philolophy of math books in general you could recommend?
@user170039 I'm sure I can find one I suppose
I'll get one now
@user170039 So I figured Bertrand Russell's was a good choice
given his enormous influence and lateral interests
 
user131753
4:48 AM
As you wish @DavidReed.
 
David Reed
David Reed
@user170039 ...
I'm very open to your reccomendations as well, I just thought you were afk at the time. I virtually always buy multiptle texts on the same subject.
 
user131753
What is "afk" @DavidReed?
 
David Reed
David Reed
away from keyboard
 
 
5 hours later…
user21820
user21820
10:28 AM
@DavidReed You won't go wrong if you read from Kleene and Boolos. A lot of other logicians are actually sloppy when it comes to philosophy. For Boolos you can read Logic, logic and logic which he compiled just before his death. I've read a few of those in there.
Russell didn't really care enough about (mathematical) logic to put in enough effort to understand Godel's result, at least as implied here.
 
 
2 hours later…
user131753
12:44 PM
@user21820 I don't understand which part of the answer implies that, "Russell didn't really care enough about (mathematical) logic to put in enough effort to understand Godel's result". Can you point that out explicitly?
 
user131753
12:56 PM
Also note this comment by the same user whose answer you linked above @user21820.
 
David Reed
David Reed
2:55 PM
@user21820 Well Russell was an analytic philosopher at his core. This book I bought in particular was about his thoughts on the philosophy of mathematics as opposed to mathematical logic. At least that's what the title said :)
 
user21820
user21820
3:54 PM
@user170039 In the past, I have always explained my reasoning to you, and then you dismiss it. Since it seems you want to force me, it's just Russell's own words that he was glad he was no longer working in logic, implying that he didn't care enough to figure out what he was missing.
 
user131753
You mean the following quote,
 
user131753
→ 1 message moved to trash
 
user131753
"I realized, of course, that Godel’s work is of fundamental importance, but I was puzzled by it. It made me glad that I was no longer working at mathematical logic. If a given set of axioms leads to a contradiction, it is clear that at least one of the axioms must be false. Does this apply to school-boy's arithmetic, and, if so, can we believe anything that we were taught in our youth? Are we to think that 2 + 2 is not 4, but 4.001? Obviously, this is not what is intended."
 
user131753
→ 5 messages moved to trash
 
user131753
Right @user21820?
 
user131753
5:19 PM
→ 18 messages moved to trash
 
user131753
Take your time @user21820 to further explain your viewpoints regarding this issue.
 
user131753
room mode changed to Public: anyone may enter and talk
 
user21820
user21820
@user170039 Right. At face value of Russell's remark, he knew that obviously he was missing something because he said obviously Godel did not intend to show that school-boy's arithmetic has at least one false axiom.
 
user131753
Please continue from this.
 
user131753
→ 16 messages moved to trash
 
user131753
5:34 PM
→ 3 messages moved to trash
 

« first day (102 days earlier)      last day (638 days later) »