Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 06/03/04
- Next message: Chris Menzel: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- In reply to: Tron Furu: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Next in thread: Tron Furu: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: Tron Furu: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Jun 2004 17:13:10 GMT
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:03:11 +0200, Tron Furu <tronfuru@frisurf.no> said:
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 05:16:58 +0200, Tron Furu <tronfuru@frisurf.no> said:
> > > To the degree that the working mechanism of Goedel's Proof involve
> > > what pre-Fregian Logic classified as fallacies,
> >
> > That degree would be zero. There is no fallacy of any sort anywhere in
> > Godel's proof.
>
> Strange that so many people going on about the Liar Paradox etc.
Nothing strange about it, really. Someone has a fuzzy grasp of the
analogies between the Liar and the Godel sentence and, without
bothering actually to learn enough to understand the latter, attributes
to it the pathologies of the former. It's just typical crackpottery.
> Quoting you from below: "...learn enough to understand what the theorem
> actually says ..." Having gotten through GEB I thought I did understand what
> it says, although it had been said in another way than Goedel said it
> himself; but I take it that the way he said it is crucial, then.
Not really. The version in GEB is fine.
> Source of confusion: if math is third order logic,
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I take it you are alluding to some
sort of type theoretic reconstruction that requires quantification over
properties of properties of individuals. Or something. I don't think
that's a terribly common approach to the foundations of mathematics
anymore...
> and logic can be expressed in ordinary language ....
Well, it can be expressed in English, but I wouldn't call it a part of
ordinary language, at least not the more advanced parts of mathematical
logic. Notions of completeness, consistency, etc are not concepts from
ordinary language.
> > or turn
> > to the study of more appropriate sources, e.g., Austin or the later
> > Wittgenstein.
>
> Austin? Speech Act theory? I have read quite a lot of LW's "Philosophische
> Untersuchungen". I fail to see the connection. Source for what?
I was, perhaps hastily, attributing to you an interest in ordinary
language philosophy.
Chris Menzel
- Next message: Chris Menzel: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- In reply to: Tron Furu: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Next in thread: Tron Furu: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: Tron Furu: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|