Re: Question on Chaitin


"Timothy Murphy" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pt0ie.53311$Z14.44333@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> tchow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Whatever shortcomings Torkel Franzen may have, inability to understand
>> the consequences of Goedel's theorems is not one of them. Read his book
>> "Inexhaustibility" and then judge whether it is his mathematical ability
>> or yours that is greater.
>
> I haven't read this book - I didn't know it existed -
> but I would certainly not claim Franzen lacked mathematical ability.
>
> I thought some of his original criticisms of Chaitin's writings were
> cogent.
> But now he has got into a mode where his main concern seems to be
> to prove Chaitin wrong, rather than work out what he (Chaitin) means.
>

www.phil.gu.se/posters/jslic.ps

"This paper by van Lambalgen has been ignored by Chaitin, who has
continued to argue for the claim, now known to be unfounded, that
c S is a measure of the information content of S. 7 In frustration
over this Raatikainen has published a paper [Raa98], where he
elaborates and extends the criticism of van Lambalgen, and presents
van Lambalgens arguments even more clearly.

Where van Lambalgen is a little bit cautious and says e.g. that "Chaitin's
matematics do not support his philosophical conclusions", Raatikainen is
straightforward and claims that he shows "conclusively that the received
view is false"."

SH: Allow me to do some interpretation for you. The intelligent
mathematical community no longer endorses Chaitin's forays into
philosophical stretches of the imagination based on his formal results.

Tim Chow wrote:
"Could you please give examples of incorrect suggestions in these papers?"

I've seen Tim Chow post on FOM so he should be aware of the
criticisms applied to Chaitin for his philosphical embellishments on FOM.

Spectral Scheffer Sequences,
Stephen



.