Re: Goedel - interesting problem?

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 06/10/04 

Date: 9 Jun 2004 23:37:06 -0500

 poohonlsd@yahoo.com (Acid Pooh) wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in message news:<40c3585d$0$83331
$45beb828
>@newscene.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> Upshot: If you can't explain it and defend it in cooperative dialog,
>> stop with the professor bit. This is the real-world. No privileged
>> positions here. Put up or shut up, etc. You don't win or cooperatively
>> analyze a chess game by telling your opponent to go read a book.
>>
>> >Without it, you'll just be drawn to whatever happens to
>> >tickle your ears, with no basis for distinguishing truth from fiction.
>>
>> Ditto. More kook talk. Explain or refrain!
>
>We're not here to explain Godel's theorem to you.

I don't need anyone to explain that. I just want responsive dialog. For
instance, you objected to my statement that the Theorem had a use
outside the context of its proof. I then replied with two examples of
use, one of them relying on your very own assertion about analogies
being useful (or whatever). The other example (an afterthought) was
much better, I thought. Very clear use of Dolan's article not relating
to the proof. You never responed to my two examples. Not "wrong" or
"ok" or "I don't agree" or anything. Then there was continued argument
with other posters as if the examples did not exist. That doesn't prove
anything. But enough of these and I start to think people have an
agenda.

>To borrow your
>phrase, this is the real world.

Then why do you insist that I buy a book on theory? (To put
"real-world" back in the context where you lifted it from.)

> Nobody owes you an explanation. If
>you're interested in the theorem, you should get a good text book and
>learn the theorem.

I have redundantly posted that I am not interested in the Goedel proof.
So your IF is not invoked, so that THEN "you should get a goot text
book and learn the theorem" is not invoiked...AND...

>If you need help with that, I'm sure somebody here
>would be helpful enough to explain that bit to you. If you're not
>interested in doing that, that's fine too. Just don't waste our time.
> You can be sure that no one who actually understands Godel's theorem
>learned its details on usenet.

..that makes the above irrelevant too.
>>
>> Explain the effect of Goedel's theorem to a music major, etc., who has
>> never heard the name "Goedel" before in no more words than Kent used.
>
>That would be pretty pointless. All one could possibly communicate is
>fluff, even with 10 more words than Dolan used.

The above is a bare opinion.

>Look, this is a place
>where people talk about logic, not what music majors think about
>logic.

Any logic subject is on-topic here unless it is more suitable in
another group (save the humor please). A simplified explanation of
Goedel suitable for an educated layperson is also on topic. "Music
major" was only an example of an educated layperson.

>> Make is *useful* in a wide-variety of argumentation, some only touching
>> upon Goedel in passing, and with the reader never having heard of
>> Goedel before. And don't forget I lifted the piece out of two posts
>> long after the fact. He composed his version in no more time than he
>> would take with any two short newsgroup posts. Piece of cake, eh? All
>> you need to do that is a clear theoretical understanding of the
>> Theorem, eh?
>
>Godel's theorem is a technical result with very specific hypotheses.
>It will obviously only apply in a very small class of circumstances.
>With a clear understanding of the theorem, it is relatively easy to
>identify those circumstances in which Godel's theorem or a
>generalization thereof may apply.

As I said, I presented two examples of "use" outside of the proof of
the theorem. I also went on at length in another post about how useful
simultaneous equations were even without knowing why subtraction
solves them. You know that there are a trillion examples of use v.
theory, including where the use isn't as a tool. There are lots of uses
besides being tools.

><snip>
>
>> If I did that, all would be
>> lost. But theory isn't enough, and make no mistake, that is the major
>> rub here, less so the article in question. Theory is subject to paradox
>> and incompleness. That's what we're arguing about. That's the threat
>> that I represent to your and Torkel and probably others in this group.
>>
>You say drivel like this and have the gall to accuse others of being a
>kook?

I wasn't implying Chris is a kook. I was reminding him that when we
refute some part of a kook message, instead of them replying with an
"agree" or an explanation why your refutation doesn't work, one of
their devices is to say something like "If you would read XYZ book on
UFOlogy you would understand what I said." I had already plainly and
redundantly implied that the Goedel proof is about as useful to me as a
book on UFOlogy.

The best test of whether someone is a kook or not is to judge whether
their replies are responsive and clearly explanatory. That's the one
thing a kook can't do. Chris has done it more than anyone else with me.
So obviously he is no kook.

Regarding an agenda in the group, well I have several. Just ask and
I'll make a bullet list of 10. Why is it an insult to say that others
do too? We all have agendas. They invest us in the results of arguments.
Thus, they affect our objectivity.

I complained that nobody would address the pragmatic or editing
aspects of the article, and that I viewed those as overriding the
theory in some respect, yet nobody would address these. It's not
enough just to say, "I'm amazed that you could think..." or "That is
garbage..." or "You simply will never agree with something that
I see as so obviously true..." or "You should read this book..." That
is not cooperative. That is not explanatory. If you think talking to
me is not worthwhile, then don't talk. If you think I'm a troll, then
plonk me. If you think I'm posting something that is damaging in
some way, then correct it, but I can come back in an correct what
you said. That's the way Usenet works. No reason to get upset
about it. Nothing can be done. Just plonk me if you find my
ideas annoying. I plonk posters at the drop of a hat. My plonk list
is a huge file. It has made Usenet a relatively pleasurable and
interesting place to be as opposed to almost a total waste of
time, not to mention source of irritation.

We all make mistakes. Chris made a very thoughtful post that took
a lot of time, though it still unfortunately contained some implied
insults that I should have overlooked. I was mainly insulting in return.
But most of his post was quite valuable explanation. I apologized.
I apologized again. I'm also sorry that what I said here in the quotes
pissed you off so much. I wasn't trying to. But I was probably trying
to piss *somebody* off. <g>

>Wow. I've got to admit, I like your style, if nothing else.
>To start with, the incompleteness you mention is of a very specific
>sort. And its very well understood. How you got from arguing for a
>description of Godel's theorem for people with no attention span to
>this, I do not know.

But I told you my wife graduated from a name-brand college with
honors. So she obviously has an attention span. What she doesn't
have is any background in mathematical logic. I also gave you
another an example of how Dolan's article would have "worked"
in a specific instance, sufficient to understand something we could
have talked about for a few minutes, then she could forget for the
rest of her life. Perhaps I just wanted her temporary perspective
on some related issue where Goedel was only of passing interest,
and she just needed a quick explanation. There are an infinite number
of trivial uses I could cook up, but that is only saying that just
about everything has some pragmatic use of some kind. Hard to think of
anything that doesn't. What couldn't be used for an analogy?

>But your claim of being a "threat" is completely unfounded.

I tend to overdramatize things. In the past I have published a lot that
annoys some academic logicians. Even the term "academic logician"
annoys some. My main thesis is "objectivity is the endpoint of
reasoning" and that certainly would rub some logicians the wrong way.
I've talked about the "logic/fact" snatcher, and wouldn't that bother
some logicians.
I've promoted real-world logic to have equal standing with theoretical
logic regarding overall academic benefit, and in some uses promoted
it *over* theoretical logic, and I am again doing that here. Wouldn't
that also annoy some? Well I can't possibly know the true/false
condition of that, but I can judge a probability can't I? And, see,
there I go again!

I bet you're pretty annoyed at me now, eh? Well, I like the Dolan'
article, do you?
>
>> But at the end of the day, we have to seek the facts as they are, not
>> as they should be. If you refuse to accept that, you will lose in the
>> eyes of the great majority and in the eyes of the people who matter
>> most. You will lose credibility.
>
>You might want to actually know what the facts actually are before you
>make statements like these.

Note that that doesn't say anything other than your bare opinion. I'm
thus separating it out from what you say next.

>If you understood the theorem (and you
>could, with a few hours effort: read The Philosophies of Mathematics
>by George and Velleman for an accurate introduction), you would see
>that facts as they are. Nobody is going to make the effort for you.

I never said I did not understand the theorem. I said I wasn't the
least interested in the proof, that it wasn't useful to me, that I was
not expert enough to argue it in the presence of Phd's with a
university, and probably a few more things in that vein, but I never
once said I did not understand the theorem. I even corrected people
twice who had more-or-less implied I did not understand it. This could
possibly become a crucial issue at some point, probably not.

I've given several other reasons for claiming ignorance in this regard
and I believe they are sufficient. Of course I have other reasons
besides the ones I've posted so far, but don't we all.

I hope my answers to other questions were at least responsive.

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: new quantum mechanics?
    ... need an explanation and physics provides NONE. ... I dont automatically classify someone as a kook just because they are ... conglomeration of various species of bent twisted and deformed space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: WoD letter to editor
    ... >> I'm not the one taking a data point (average increasing) to mean ... > Okay - so you don't have an explanation. ... I've got lots of explanations, kook, but I don't know which one is ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
    ... > You have posted the above explanation to the one newsgroup which did ... Thank Satan for Goedel. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
Quantcast