Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Logical Quantifiers Again
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  1 message - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Barb Knox  
View profile  
 More options Dec 26 2011, 6:01 pm
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory, comp.edu
From: Barb Knox <s...@sig.below>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:01:02 +1300
Local: Mon, Dec 26 2011 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: Logical Quantifiers Again
In article
<956f09a9-e075-4305-b27a-9742e0e38...@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
 Tony Orlow <bonyto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 24, 7:55 pm, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Orlow, as I said, you would reply with yet more confusions. I can't
> > perpetually disabuse you or your own confusions that you manufacture
> > in the vacuum of your knowledge on the subject.

> I do have a bachelor's in Computer Science, which consists of logical
> structures as well as other informational representations and
> structures. If that is a vacuum of knowledge, then I suppose I have to
> be a published PhD for you to consider my thoughts as being remotely
> worth consideration. A rather pompous position for you to take
> IMHO....

He did say a vacuum of knowledge *on the subject*, which happens to be
mathematical logic.  An encyclopaedic knowledge of (say) Etruscan
pottery would be useless here, and IMO a knowledge of computer "science"
(i.e., computer programming) is *worse* than useless.

Yes, you have worked with certain logical structures and certain finite
representations and structures.  But trying to force all of mathematics
onto that Procrustean bed causes no end of mutilation.

Perhaps you have heard the old CS saying that if you know Fortran then
you can learn Lisp in 3 weeks, and if you don't know Fortran you can
learn Lisp in 2 weeks.  (To modernise this, replace "Fortran" with "C".)

The point is that some kinds of knowledge induce a worldview that
actively interferes with some other kinds of knowledge.  In your case
(and many others), knowledge of one-step-at-a-time stateful finite
processes and structures actively interferes with all-at-once stateless
infinite mathematics.

If some publisher wanted it, I would be happy to write a book on
Remedial Mathematics for Computer Programmers.  But the demand would be
low, since so many competent computer programmers confuse their godlike
powers of calling things into existence by mere thought (and typing)
with actual omniscience.  Oh well.

</rant>

[snip]

[added comp.edu]

--
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum videtur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |  
-----------------------------


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »