In anticipation of the finitism essays

[Aatu Koskensilta]

There's something that I find rather puzzling. Floyd and Putnam,
writing about the "notorious paragraph" in Wittgenstein about G�del's
theorems, say all manner of no doubt very sophisticated and profound
philosophical things. Kreisel however, and I don't think there's any
reason to think he's lying here, explains that this paragraph was the
Old Witter's reaction to the introductory section of G's paper. After
Kreisel explained the theorem, in terms of Turing machines and all that,
the Big-W was perfectly satisfied, so we are told. This in some rambling
piece of Big-K's or other. I simply can't -- and I must admit I just
skimmed the exchange, so it's possible Putnam, Floyd, and their critics
in fact bring up this point, and dismiss it with some clever flimlam --
for the life of me understand what the point is of trying to come up
with too-clever-by-half explanations of what Witters might have meant,
given that he plainly says things that are absolutely bonkers, and we
can't have that from the old Double-Vee, so he can't possibly mean what
he plainly says. In his review of W's blather on these issues, Kreisel
got it absolutely right, I posit. There's loads of interesting stuff
about calculations and elementary arithmetic. There's nothing of
interest to anyone on actual mathematics, for the very simple reason
Wittgenstein didn't know any of it.

I guess I could ask Floyd and Putnam. But where's the fun in that?

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

[George Greene]

On Aug 7, 8:45 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>   There's something that I find rather puzzling. Floyd and Putnam,
> writing about the "notorious paragraph" in Wittgenstein about G del's
> theorems, say all manner of no doubt very sophisticated and profound
> philosophical things.

Well, I couldn't be bothered, but I did read the paragraph for myself.

It is just wrong.

I am not Floyd or Putnam but the paragraph is seemingly ignorant
of the whole notion of truth UNDER an "interpretation" or "model",
i.e. of the SEMANTIC half/version of the whole enterprise.

[Frederick Williams]

Would that we could just dismiss Wittgenstein as a charlatan or
half-wit. In my days of studying philosophy I tried to without much
luck. How Russell was led astray one can hardly comprehend.

--
The animated figures stand
Adorning every public street
And seem to breathe in stone, or
Move their marble feet.

[dilettante]

"Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:5024F7CF...@btinternet.com...

> George Greene wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 7, 8:45 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>> > There's something that I find rather puzzling. Floyd and Putnam,
>> > writing about the "notorious paragraph" in Wittgenstein about G del's
>> > theorems, say all manner of no doubt very sophisticated and profound
>> > philosophical things.
>>
>> Well, I couldn't be bothered, but I did read the paragraph for myself.
>>
>> It is just wrong.
>>
>> I am not Floyd or Putnam but the paragraph is seemingly ignorant
>> of the whole notion of truth UNDER an "interpretation" or "model",
>> i.e. of the SEMANTIC half/version of the whole enterprise.
>
> Would that we could just dismiss Wittgenstein as a charlatan or
> half-wit. In my days of studying philosophy I tried to without much
> luck. How Russell was led astray one can hardly comprehend.

It is perhaps not so hard to comprehend. They spent long hours in Russell's
rooms alone at night. I'm sure Wittgenstien displayed certain ummmm....
skills. I bet he passed his oral exams with flying colors.

[Frederick Williams]

Wittgenstein was homosexual or perhaps bisexual; but I know of no reason
to think that Russell was either. Russell's autobiography is very frank
and was published after homosexual law reform and no mention is made of
it. Does Ray Monk or any other biographer mention it?

[Frederick Williams]

Right now I can only lay my hand on volume one of Monk's
autobiography(*). On page 408 (Vintage, 1997 printing) we learn that
Russell was against sodomy. Now, does that mean homosexual acts between
men generally, or just anal intercourse? If the latter, then it does
not address your reference to fellatio.

But there is a problem with your claim even if Russell and Wittgenstein
had sexual relations: why would that cause Russell to be influenced by
Wittgenstein's philosophy?

(* The problem is I have too little space on my bookshelves, so some
books are shelved behind others.)

[dilettante]

"Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:5025268C...@btinternet.com...

Homosexual? Did I say anything about sex (feigning innocence)?
Actually, I was just making a joke, but I don't think the idea is too
far-fetched, though it is pure speculation on my part - I haven't read
anything to this effect.. Even a person with progressive views on sexual
matters, like Russell, may have associated homosexuality with guilt and
shame (on some emotional level, if not intellectually), and kept any such
activity on the "down low".
Wittgenstein's career at Cambridge really is a puzzle. I seem to recall that
the Tractatus was initially rejected as inadequate for some requirement like
a senior thesis, and then some years later accepted as a PhD dissertation.
Reading the thing, one can't help but conclude they got it right the first
time. Accounts of his lectures sound comical - long periods of silence as
Wittgenstein paced silently, occasionally glaring significantly at his
audience, punctuated by his little dicta ( oh dear, I made a pun!). So one
wonders, what was going on? Did Wittgenstein family money somehow find its
way to Cambridge, with some strings attached? Did Wittgenstein have some
kind of psycho-sexual grip on Russell and others? This is all base, and
baseless, speculation, but what the hell, it's only sci.math. It's not like
I'm speaking in public.

[dilettante]

"dilettante" <n...@nonono.no> wrote in message
news:k03cjk$u81$1...@dont-email.me...

I say I seem to recall this, because I do, but I can't find the reference,
and it doesn't square with what's written in the introduction to the edition
of the Tractatus that I have (yes, charlatan or not, W managed to sell me a
book, posthumously), which indicates that the whole thing was written after
W left Cambridge the first time. Does anyone else know where the version I
gave came from (the book Wittgenstein's Poker, perhaps?), or did I
manufacture it out of whole cloth?

[gus gassmann]

Fascinating thread. I have done some searching and found in the journal
"Philosophy" (Cambridge University Press) an article by Michael Cohen,
"Was Wittgenstein a plagiarist?" (Vol. 76 #3 (2001), p. 451-459). He
ascribes the idea that Wittgenstein's Tractatus was insufficient for a
Ph.D. at Cambridge to an earlier article in Philosophy (Vol 74 #3
(1999), p. 499-513) by Laurence Goldstein. Cohen rejects the thesis of
his paper.

[David C. Ullrich]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 03:45:03 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta
<aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:

>
> [...] I simply can't [...]

>for the life of me understand what the point is of trying to come up
>with too-clever-by-half explanations of what Witters might have meant,
>given that he plainly says things that are absolutely bonkers, and we
>can't have that from the old Double-Vee, so he can't possibly mean what
>he plainly says.

You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.

[Marshall]

On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:30:28 PM UTC-7, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
> is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
> one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.

This consideration is not unique to philosophy.


Marshall

[Graham Cooper]

On Aug 11, 6:30 am, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 03:45:03 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta
>

> <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
> > [...] I simply can't [...]
> >for the life of me understand what the point is of trying to come up
> >with too-clever-by-half explanations of what Witters might have meant,
> >given that he plainly says things that are absolutely bonkers, and we
> >can't have that from the old Double-Vee, so he can't possibly mean what
> >he plainly says.
>
> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
> is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
> one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.
>
>

"Imagine a people in whose language there is no such
form of sentence as "the book is in the drawer" or "water is
in the glass", but whenever we should sue these forms theyh
say, "The book can be taken out of the drawer", "The water
can be taken out of the glass". ~ Wittgenstein


Kind of like a fourier transform to the frequency domain or Space-Time
events..

This isn't go to be all about Godel's prOOf is it?

I'm not reading more on that diatribe unless you answer these
questions.


*****************************************************
*****************************************************
Q2
Why is this GODEL NUMBER BARRED from a theory?

20032104211598200321042105
a00(a10,a11)=!a00(a10,a10)
x e y <-> NOT(x e x)
RUSSELL'S SET

*****************************************************
*****************************************************
Q3
And this GODEL NUMBER is a prerequisite of all theories > PA?

8203215
!a0(a1)
NOT(PROOF(GN#))
GODEL'S STATEMENT

*****************************************************
*****************************************************

[LudovicoVan]

"gus gassmann" <g...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k03ogq$e12$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca...

> On 10/08/2012 1:52 PM, dilettante wrote:
>> "dilettante" <n...@nonono.no> wrote in message
>> news:k03cjk$u81$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5025268C...@btinternet.com...
>>>> dilettante wrote:
>>>>> "Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5024F7CF...@btinternet.com...

<snip>

This speculation about Witts and Russie's anuses is fascinating?

-LV

[LudovicoVan]

"Marshall" <marshal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d08345f1-f7be-4f87...@googlegroups.com...

It is. In fact, in maths you can have different "theories", not in
philosophy.

You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy, to distinguish it
from word salad.

-LV

[Marshall]

On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:12:30 PM UTC-7, LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d08345f1-f7be-4f87...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:30:28 PM UTC-7, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> >> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
> >> is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
> >> one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.
>
> > This consideration is not unique to philosophy.
>
> It is. In fact, in maths you can have different "theories", not in
> philosophy.

Damn, you're stupid. You can't be more than 20, can you?


Marshall

[LudovicoVan]

"Marshall" <marshal...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:34208e2b-0e66-4e1f...@googlegroups.com...

For all I know, I might be older than you, surely not in my 20's, darling.
What the heck is the problem now? (Before I start retorting about the sea
water in your skull and similar?)

-LV

[Graham Cooper]

On Aug 11, 12:12 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:d08345f1-f7be-4f87...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:30:28 PM UTC-7, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> >> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
> >> is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
> >> one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.

That's propositional calculus.

>
> > This consideration is not unique to philosophy.

Do yo play Jeopardy?

>
> It is.  In fact, in maths you can have different "theories", not in
> philosophy.

That ain't maths. See the [[JACKPOT POST]]

http://pro1og.com/MATHS-JACKPOT.png

7 July 7:21pm

[7] [7] [7] : [7]+[7]+[7]

>
> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy, to distinguish it
> from word salad.
>
> -LV

there are no alternate philosophies now?

You all need a 1st year course in parallel programming.

Herc

[LudovicoVan]

"Graham Cooper" <graham...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c75835a6-58c9-4fac...@hv2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> there are no alternate philosophies now?

Not now, not ever. There are alternate attempts at philosophy, and many
ways to misunderstand it.

-LV

[Graham Cooper]

On Aug 11, 1:17 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> > there are no alternate philosophies now?
>
> Not now, not ever.  There are alternate attempts at philosophy, and many
> ways to misunderstand it.
>
> -LV

The Foolproof Academic Defence, as used by the Cantor Institutions we
call Universities.


Herc

[Marshall]

On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:50:59 PM UTC-7, LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34208e2b-0e66-4e1f...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:12:30 PM UTC-7, LudovicoVan wrote:
> >> "Marshall" <marshal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:d08345f1-f7be-4f87...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:30:28 PM UTC-7, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> >> >> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
> >> >> is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
> >> >> one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.
>
> >> > This consideration is not unique to philosophy.
>
> >> It is. In fact, in maths you can have different "theories", not in
> >> philosophy.
>
> > Damn, you're stupid. You can't be more than 20, can you?
>
> For all I know, I might be older than you, surely not in my 20's, darling.
> What the heck is the problem now? (Before I start retorting about the sea
> water in your skull and similar?)

Well, David commented on how in philosophy, sometimes people
talk in a more complicated way than necessary to obscure their
meaning. This happens in every field: law, medicine, engineering,
marketing, etc.

It seems that you must have misread David's post, yes?


Marshall

[dilettante]

"David C. Ullrich" <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:dgra28ln2ndtuujkg...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 03:45:03 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta
> <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
>>
>> [...] I simply can't [...]
>>for the life of me understand what the point is of trying to come up
>>with too-clever-by-half explanations of what Witters might have meant,
>>given that he plainly says things that are absolutely bonkers, and we
>>can't have that from the old Double-Vee, so he can't possibly mean what
>>he plainly says.
>
> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
> is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
> one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.

Indeed. For instance, Bertrand Russell in his introduction to the Tractatus
informs us that "Wittgenstein's fundamental thesis" is "that it is
impossible to say anything about the world as a whole." Now presumably
Russell had read the Tractatus and knew that Wittgenstein began by not
saying anything about the world as a whole thus:
"The world is all that is the case.
"The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.
For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all
that is not the case."
...and more in this vein.
A lesser mortal might have stated his thesis prosaically, in words more or
less like Russell's. Wittgenstein's genius was to go ahead and SAY NOTHING
about the world as a whole, and leave it to the reader to draw his own
conclusions. Oddly, it took Wittgenstein pages and pages to say nothing when
he was writing, but by all accounts it came quite easily to him in
conversation. He was apparently capable of the most eloquent silences.

[Bill Taylor]

On Aug 11, 12:00 am, Frederick Williams

<freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Would that we could just dismiss Wittgenstein as a charlatan
> or half-wit.

Why cannot we dismiss W as either a half-wit or a charlatan?
There is powerful evidence for the thesis, and I have never
heard of any evidence against.

-- Bewildered Bill

** "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy
** what we do not doubt in our hearts." - Pierce

[George Greene]

> George Greene wrote:
> > I am not Floyd or Putnam but the paragraph is seemingly ignorant
> > of the whole notion of truth UNDER an "interpretation" or "model",
> > i.e. of the SEMANTIC half/version of the whole enterprise.

On Aug 10, 8:00 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> Would that we could just dismiss Wittgenstein as a charlatan or
> half-wit.  In my days of studying philosophy I tried to without much
> luck.  How Russell was led astray one can hardly comprehend.

Excuse me for being a gay philosophy major,
but I am not in favor of that. That would be throwing the baby out
with the bathwater.
I think even the condemnations about this specific issue are too
strong;
the "notorious paragraph" was an INITIAL reaction. According to AK,

> "After Kreisel explained the theorem, in terms of Turing machines and all that,
> the Big-W was perfectly satisfied, so we are told."

It really is NOT the TMs and all that that are necessary to the
explanation, though.
The paragraph wrongly refers to truth in a "system". THAT is NOT
"where truth lies"(pun intended).
The "truth" part is in the INTERPRETATIONS/structures/MODELS, NOT the
TMs.
THAT is what "the notorious paragraph" seems to fall short of
reaching.

[David C. Ullrich]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:21:31 -0500, "dilettante" <n...@nonono.no> wrote:

>
>[...] Oddly, it took Wittgenstein pages and pages to say nothing when
>he was writing,

Guffaw.

> but by all accounts it came quite easily to him in
>conversation. He was apparently capable of the most eloquent silences.

My silences are a lot more eloquent. So there.

[David Bernier]

On 08/11/2012 09:32 AM, Bill Taylor wrote:
> On Aug 11, 12:00 am, Frederick Williams
> <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Would that we could just dismiss Wittgenstein as a charlatan
>> or half-wit.
>
> Why cannot we dismiss W as either a half-wit or a charlatan?
> There is powerful evidence for the thesis, and I have never
> heard of any evidence against.
>
> -- Bewildered Bill

[...]

With novels, authors are often amazed at "interpretations" and/or
"references to works" and/or "references to [...]" that
they never imagined.

As if the reader constructs a myth, a.k.a. is sometimes
reading tea leaves.

Even the million monkeys would eventually produce such works,
unbeknownst to most humans ...

So, if in some cases the meaning of a text is partly a
construction of the reader, and the author of the text
has left us, and if we admit that in some cases the ideas
of the author were not fully formed in mind or adequately
explained in writing, we could at some point be trying to
"read tea leaves" ...

Wittgenstein died in 1951, three years before Turing in 1954.
Turing was well/highly regarded by Goedel for the most
"connvincing" analysis of effectively computable, by
Turing machines.

Did Wittgenstein speak of/to Turing, or vice versa?

very curious Dave

[David Bernier]

On 08/10/2012 04:30 PM, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 03:45:03 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta
> <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
>>
>> [...] I simply can't [...]
>> for the life of me understand what the point is of trying to come up
>> with too-clever-by-half explanations of what Witters might have meant,
>> given that he plainly says things that are absolutely bonkers, and we
>> can't have that from the old Double-Vee, so he can't possibly mean what
>> he plainly says.
>
> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one
> is doing philosophy and one says what one means then another
> one would be able to determine whether one was right or not.

[...]

Hello Professor Ullrich,

Maybe saying very little about philosophical things is
a form of philosophy ...

---

Unknown wrote:
<< If you would like to watch philosophers squirm--and who
wouldn't?--pose this tough question: Suppose you may either a) solve a
major philosophical problem so conclusively that there is nothing left
to say (thanks to you, part of the field closes down forever, and you
get a footnote in history); or b) write a book of such tantalizing
perplexity and controversy that it stays on the required-reading list
for centuries to come. Which would you choose? Many philosophers will
reluctantly admit that they would go for option b). If they had to
choose, they would rather be read than right. The Austrian philosopher
Ludwig Wittgenstein tried brilliantly to go for a) and ended up with b).
>> [etc.]

quoted from < http://www.angelfire.com/md/davpete/wittg.html > .


David Bernier

[Frederick Williams]

David Bernier wrote:

>
> Did Wittgenstein speak of/to Turing, or vice versa?

I do know that Wittgenstein had a high regard for Georg Kreisel.

[David Bernier]

On 08/12/2012 09:22 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> David Bernier wrote:
>
>>
>> Did Wittgenstein speak of/to Turing, or vice versa?
>
> I do know that Wittgenstein had a high regard for Georg Kreisel.
>

That's interesting.

Solomon Fefferman, a logician, was on the editorial board of
"The Collected Works of Kurt Goedel" (in ~= 3 to 4 volumes ).
[completed in the 2000's ].

Fefferman wrote a long long article on this endeavour.
There's a passing mention of Goedel's reaction to
"Wittgenstein on Goedel's proof".

David Bernier

[dilettante]

"David Bernier" <davi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:k07aq2$21p$1...@dont-email.me...

It is a little too soon to draw consclusions about whether Wittgenstein
acheived b).

[dilettante]

"dilettante" <n...@nonono.no> wrote in message

news:k08gp8$lgu$1...@dont-email.me...

or achieved it.

[David Bernier]

On 08/12/2012 10:31 AM, David Bernier wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 09:22 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>> David Bernier wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Did Wittgenstein speak of/to Turing, or vice versa?
>>
>> I do know that Wittgenstein had a high regard for Georg Kreisel.
>>
>
> That's interesting.
>
> Solomon Fefferman, a logician, was on the editorial board of

[...]

^ should be Feferman
as in:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Feferman > .

> "The Collected Works of Kurt Goedel" (in ~= 3 to 4 volumes ).
> [completed in the 2000's ].
>
> Fefferman wrote a long long article on this endeavour.
> There's a passing mention of Goedel's reaction to
> "Wittgenstein on Goedel's proof".

[...]

Feferman writes:

<< As a footnote he added: “and in the Tractatus (the
book itself really contains very few assertions).” >>

"he" being Goedel.

From: "The Goedel Editorial Project: A synopsis"
by Solomon Feferman. On page 10.

On the Web:
< http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/Goedel-Project-Synopsis.pdf > .

David Bernier

[David Libert]

Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi) writes:
> There's something that I find rather puzzling. Floyd and Putnam,

> writing about the "notorious paragraph" in Wittgenstein about Gödel's

> theorems, say all manner of no doubt very sophisticated and profound

> philosophical things. Kreisel however, and I don't think there's any
> reason to think he's lying here, explains that this paragraph was the
> Old Witter's reaction to the introductory section of G's paper. After

> Kreisel explained the theorem, in terms of Turing machines and all that,

> the Big-W was perfectly satisfied, so we are told. This in some rambling
> piece of Big-K's or other. I simply can't -- and I must admit I just
> skimmed the exchange, so it's possible Putnam, Floyd, and their critics
> in fact bring up this point, and dismiss it with some clever flimlam --

> for the life of me understand what the point is of trying to come up
> with too-clever-by-half explanations of what Witters might have meant,
> given that he plainly says things that are absolutely bonkers, and we
> can't have that from the old Double-Vee, so he can't possibly mean what

> he plainly says. In his review of W's blather on these issues, Kreisel

> got it absolutely right, I posit. There's loads of interesting stuff
> about calculations and elementary arithmetic. There's nothing of
> interest to anyone on actual mathematics, for the very simple reason
> Wittgenstein didn't know any of it.
>
> I guess I could ask Floyd and Putnam. But where's the fun in that?
>

> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus


Here is a JSTOR reference to Floyd and Putnam:

[1] Juliet Floyd and Hilary Putnam
A Note on Wittgenstein's "Notorious Paragraph"
About the Godel Theorem
The Journal of Philosophy
(2000) 97 (11):624-632

http://philpapers.org/rec/FLOANO
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2678455?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101142015627

The 2nd url above gives a free preview of the opening page, which
quotes in full Wittgenstein's "notorious paragraph".


Here is a short paper, completely readable online, quoting that
Wittgenstein in full and commenting on Floyd and Putnam:

[2] Timm Lampert
Wittgenstein's "notorious paragraph" about the Godel Theorm


http://wab.uib.no/ojs/agora-alws/article/view/928/552


There is discussion of Wittgenstein's writing about Godel, and
mention of Floyd and Putman and others later:

[3] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wittgenstein's Phiosophy of Mathematics
3.6 Wittgenstein on Godel and Undecidable Mathematical Propositions


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WitGodUndMatPro


--
David Libert ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

[Aatu Koskensilta]

David C. Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> writes:

> You need to develop some appreciation for philiosophy. If one is doing
> philosophy and one says what one means then another one would be able
> to determine whether one was right or not.

No one cares who is right and who's not in philosophy. What's so
disagreeable about the "philosophical claim of great interest" Floyd and
Putnam presume to discern in the witterings of W in _RoFM_ is not that
it's wrong, or that it's not what old W really meant, or anything like
that. Patently false, thoroughly incredible, well nigh incomprehensible,
and absurd and silly stuff is of great philosophical value, after all.

Alas, as Kreisel explains in his review, the misgivings Wittgenstein
had about G�del's proof do not call for philosophizing at all, but are
rather of the sort to be addressed with boring and tedious explanations
of logical and mathematical technicalities. What is meant by saying a
formula expresses this or that or "says" or "asserts" something? What is
meant by "provable", "true", "false"? Just look up the definitions --
explains the friendly resident logician -- and observe this, and note
that, see hither lemma easily follow, yonder corollary obvious; that's
all you need to know in this context about "true", "false", "asserts",
etc.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"

[Aatu Koskensilta]

Bill Taylor <wfc.t...@gmail.com> writes:

> Why cannot we dismiss W as either a half-wit or a charlatan?

Well, if the witterings of old W aren't to your liking, why not just
pass over all Wittgensteinia in silence?

> There is powerful evidence for the thesis, and I have never
> heard of any evidence against.

Sure you have. Torkel Franz�n, for instance, found much of value in
W's waffling, and he wasn't, I'm sure you'll agree, in the habit of
finding much of value in the waffling of charlatans and half-wits.

[Aatu Koskensilta]

George Greene <gre...@email.unc.edu> writes:

> It really is NOT the TMs and all that that are necessary to the
> explanation, though.

Sure. But apparently an explanation in terms of Turing machines did
the trick for Wittgenstein.

[Aatu Koskensilta]

David Bernier <davi...@videotron.ca> writes:

> Maybe saying very little about philosophical things is a form of
> philosophy ...

How positively Wittgensteinian of you!

[Aatu Koskensilta]

Frederick Williams <freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes:

> David Bernier wrote:
>
>> Did Wittgenstein speak of/to Turing, or vice versa?
>
> I do know that Wittgenstein had a high regard for Georg Kreisel.

A famous encounter, in the style of Monty Python, between Wittgenstein
and Turing is described in _Wittgenstein's Lectures on Foundations of
Mathematics_. As for Kreisel, a famous anecdote (told by Rhees, I think)
has it that W once said K was the most able philosopher he knew who was
also a mathematician.

[Aatu Koskensilta]

Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> writes:

> Patently false, thoroughly incredible, well nigh incomprehensible, and
> absurd and silly stuff is of great philosophical value, after all.

Sometimes, that is.

[William Elliot]

We anticipate that your essays on finitism will be finite.

[Frederick Williams]

Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>
> Frederick Williams <freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > David Bernier wrote:
> >
> >> Did Wittgenstein speak of/to Turing, or vice versa?
> >
> > I do know that Wittgenstein had a high regard for Georg Kreisel.
>
> A famous encounter, in the style of Monty Python, between Wittgenstein
> and Turing is described in _Wittgenstein's Lectures on Foundations of
> Mathematics_. As for Kreisel, a famous anecdote (told by Rhees, I think)
> has it that W once said K was the most able philosopher he knew who was
> also a mathematician.

Meanwhile, Paul has been reincarnated:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-19179499.

[Bill Taylor]

On Aug 15, 7:22 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:

> Bill Taylor <wfc.tay...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Why cannot we dismiss W as either a half-wit or a charlatan?
>
>   Well, if the witterings of old W aren't to your liking, why not just
> pass over all Wittgensteinia in silence?

(a) I do, but meta-Wittgensteiniana still gets my goat.

(b) This is Usenet!

> > There is powerful evidence for the thesis, and I have never
> > heard of any evidence against.
>
>   Sure you have. Torkel Franz n, for instance, found much of value in
> W's waffling,

I never knew that. Please summarize in two sentences.

> and he wasn't, I'm sure you'll agree, in the habit of
> finding much of value in the waffling of charlatans and half-wits.

True, but I do not have quite the same high regard for him
as many here do. And we all dislike the whiff of
argument by authority.

-- Beetle-browed Bill

** The smallest uninteresting number is not thereby interesting,
** though it IS remarkably meta-interesting.

[Marshall]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:22:52 AM UTC-7, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> Bill Taylor <wfc.t...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Why cannot we dismiss W as either a half-wit or a charlatan?
>
> Well, if the witterings of old W aren't to your liking, why not just
> pass over all Wittgensteinia in silence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI


Marshall

[Marylin Musatov]

Hello gigantic idiot. Your skull cavity is packed with chimpanzee
knuckles. You wouldn't know an on-topic post even if it crawled
up your backside singing the math & logic song at top volume
while playing a giant flaming 18 string banjo. Kill yourself.

"Aatu Koskensilta" wrote in message news:871ujik...@uta.fi...

"I am a tarded forreiner"