Torkel Franzén is dead
erl...@bredband.net
cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
Torkel Franzén worked as a university lecturer at the department of
Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, at Luleå University of
Technology, Sweden.
He taught programming courses, mostly using Java and Prolog. He earned
his PhD in 2004. His thesis (in philosophy) was titled "Provability and
Truth". He also wrote books, such as "Gödel's Theorem. An Incomplete
Guide to Its Use and Abuse", which appeared in 2005.
Gödel's Theorem was indeed one of his major interests. He wrote many
Usenet posts on this and related subjects, but he did also write posts
on many other subjects.
Torkel's too early death is a great loss for his family, colleagues,
and Usenet friends.
Erland Gadde
Department of Mathematics
Luleå University of Technology
Sweden
gow...@hotmail.com
sci.mat regarding the correct understanding and application of Goedel's
incompleteness results.
Aatu Koskensilta
I never knew Torkel personally; we exchanged but a few e-mails. But from
his USENET posts, various mailing list dicussions and his writing in
general I have an image of him as a great personality I would have been
happy - and honoured - to know. I can't enumerate the numerous little
details I took notice only after his gentle hints. Without him I would
be much more ignorant, and my USENET experience would have been
considerable less entertaining.
His posts to USENET and his books both demonstrate his great sensitivity
to logical subtleties and his skill at clear argumentation and
presentation, as well as of his peculiar but endearing sense of humour.
It's fortunate to the rest of us that he lived long enough to write two
truly excellent books on his speciality, Gödel's theorems, which are not
only unusually carefully and clearly written, but also outstanding
examples of good style, beautiful English and refreshingly non-reverent
attitude.
I will miss him, and I'm sure I'm not alone. USENET will not be the same
without him.
I wish strength to his family and friends.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Nam Nguyen
I second the motion.
--
----------------------------------------------------
Time passes, there is no way we can hold it back.
Why then do thoughts linger, long after everything
else is gone?
Ryokan
----------------------------------------------------
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Torkel Franz=E9n, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
>cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>
>Torkel Franz=E9n worked as a university lecturer at the department of
>Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, at Lule=E5 University of
>Technology, Sweden.
>He taught programming courses, mostly using Java and Prolog. He earned
>his PhD in 2004. His thesis (in philosophy) was titled "Provability and
>Truth". He also wrote books, such as "G=F6del's Theorem. An Incomplete
>Guide to Its Use and Abuse", which appeared in 2005.
>
>G=F6del's Theorem was indeed one of his major interests. He wrote many
>Usenet posts on this and related subjects, but he did also write posts
>on many other subjects.
>
>Torkel's too early death is a great loss for his family, colleagues,
>and Usenet friends.
And to fnofflers everywhere.
>Erland Gadde
>Department of Mathematics
>Lule=E5 University of Technology
>Sweden
~v~~
Wolf Kirchmeir
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>
> Torkel Franzén worked as a university lecturer at the department of
> Technology, Sweden.
> He taught programming courses, mostly using Java and Prolog. He earned
> his PhD in 2004. His thesis (in philosophy) was titled "Provability and
> Truth". He also wrote books, such as "Gödel's Theorem. An Incomplete
> Guide to Its Use and Abuse", which appeared in 2005.
>
> Gödel's Theorem was indeed one of his major interests. He wrote many
> Usenet posts on this and related subjects, but he did also write posts
> on many other subjects.
>
> Torkel's too early death is a great loss for his family, colleagues,
> and Usenet friends.
>
>
> Erland Gadde
> Department of Mathematics
> Sweden
I can't say how much I feel Torkel Franzen's loss. I read a few of his
posts some time ago, which prompted me to find his book on Goedel's
theorem, and read it. The book gave me the sense not only of clear
thinker but of a humane and courteous person. It's odd how one can get
sense of a person's character from such an apparently dry and abstract
subject. I shall miss a man I knew only through his written words. I
will miss him a lot.
Daniel Innala Ahlmark
e-mails we shared, on the subject of, guess what, Gödel's theorem!
Truly sad news, I'm really sorry for the loss.
/Daniel
The World Wide Wade
sci.math.
MoeBlee
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died
I am very sad. I feel a great loss.
I never met Torkel Franzen, but I love his books, posts, web site, and
his dry sense of humor. He was a source of not just a lot of technical
information about mathematics but also of splendid explanations and of
wisdom. His books and web site are beautifully written, in a simple,
easygoing and elegant style. My understanding of mathematics has been
greatly enhanced by his explanations and terse but cogent arguments. I
am not exaggerating when I say that I would not want to imagine not
having read the Godel book, as that book alone has put so much
mathematics in persepective for me.
And I did enjoy his teasing and playful posting style (even he posted
about this on his own web site) in his rivalries with some posters.
Always, I felt that beneath his arch tone, ever so subtle barbs,
leading comments ("I can't imagine why you think that is true..."), and
raised eyebrow there was a twinkle in his eyes. As other posters have
mentioned in this thread, I too felt that Torkel had a great feeling
for life and humanity.
Torkel was always helpful to me in the threads. I very much appreciate
his generosity and patience in working through certain problems with
me. He stuck with me to answer my questions until I finally understood
the particulars of the mathematics. I had been looking forward to more
conversations with him.
But I am glad to have known him as much as I did. I very much
appreciated and admired him. Even though my interactions with him were
so brief, and though his manner was so reserved and subtle, he left a
deep impression on me.
My thoughts go to his family, his loved ones, and his friends.
MoeBlee
Hero
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/bilder/utflykt.jpg
from his website:
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/
Fare well
Hero
R. Srinivasan
of months. When I saw that his scheduled invited talk at a Godel
centenary conference was cancelled, I suspected something had gone
wrong. Sad to see that my worst fears have come true. I used to enjoy
reading his brief and witty posts in sci.logic, especially when
sparring with anti-Godelians, who will surely miss him. So will the
Godelians on the web, who would have benefitted from his expertise. I
wanted to contact TF by email to get him to comment on my own
dissenting work, but hesitated and kept putting it off. I suspect he
wouldn't have responded anyway.
Regards, RS
Patrick
fernando revilla
all the members of the forums in which he took part.
Fernando.
NM Public
newsgroups for years, but I have many fond memories of reading
Torkel's postings in the 1990s. I just looked at what I guess are
his wedding pictures, e.g.:
<http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/bilder/wed3.jpg>
and it makes me so sad that the worlds of logic and philosophy
and usenet have lost such a great spirit.
-Nancy
Tim Peters
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
Add my tears to the chorus -- this is a real loss. I never met Torkel, but
"knew" him from his Usenet posts, especially on sci.logic in the 1990s. He
had a wonderful way of cutting through bullshit with brief, accurate,
provocative responses, which I suppose some took as arrogance, but spoke
clarity and wisdom to those able to hear. He's already missed -- what a
shame.
G. Frege
>
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>
:-(
I will miss him!
F.
--
"I do tend to feel Hughes & Cresswell is a more authoritative
source than you." (David C. Ullrich)
Chris Menzel
said:
> Torkel Franzen, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
What sad news. Torkel's postings to Usenet were consistently pitch
perfect in their combination of wit, good humor, and intelligence, and
his professional work was a substantial contribution to mathematical and
philosophical logic. He'll be greatly missed.
Chris Menzel
Phil Carmody
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
This is indeed very sad news. His tireless rebuttal of idiots
was almost unmatched, and sci.math with surely miss him.
Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, WHY CAN'T THEY TAKE SPEARS!?!?!?
Phil
--
What is it: is man only a blunder of God, or God only a blunder of man?
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), The Twilight of the Gods
erl...@bredband.net
> He earned
> his PhD in 2004.
Ooops, wrong. He earned his PhD in 1987. Sorry for the mistake.
Erland Gadde
Robert Kolker
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>
> Torkel Franzén worked as a university lecturer at the department of
> Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, at Luleĺ University of
> Technology, Sweden.
> He taught programming courses, mostly using Java and Prolog. He earned
> his PhD in 2004. His thesis (in philosophy) was titled "Provability and
> Truth". He also wrote books, such as "Gödel's Theorem. An Incomplete
> Guide to Its Use and Abuse", which appeared in 2005.
>
> Gödel's Theorem was indeed one of his major interests. He wrote many
> Usenet posts on this and related subjects, but he did also write posts
> on many other subjects.
>
> Torkel's too early death is a great loss for his family, colleagues,
> and Usenet friends.
Jeezus! Bummer! Torkel was one of the few voices of sanity on Usenet.
Bob Kolker
Alon Amit
the philosophy of mathematics and of his writing style; I learned a lot
from his books and posts. Like most people here, I never knew him in
person, but I will cherish our few e-mail exchanges.
My sincerest condolences to his family and friends.
- Alon
cbr...@cbrownsystems.com
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>
Very sad to hear this. Condolences to his family, friends and
colleagues. He will be missed by me and many others.
Chas
William of Ockham
Torkel had a tremendous energy for argument, at which he was clever,
inventive and talented in many ways. It was always amusing and
entertaining to follow the twists and turns and inventive reversals of
his arguments. I have collected some of his threads, it strikes me
that, as well as his books, one of his legacies is what is in
cyberspace, if anyone had the energy to collect them together.
Dean
William of Ockham
XYZ: "AB finds also my language too difficult to understand. That is
no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem." Franzen:
"This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments, after all, are
just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to "clear" any problem
connected with them?" XYZ: "I was rather too optimistic. I correct
myself and say that we can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING
TO COOPERATE." Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to
cooperate in the sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But
then, why should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
Lester Zick
<d3uc...@btinternet.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Quite apropos. Wish I'd said that.
~v~~
Phil Carmody
Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
More people like that on Usenet please!
JXStern
>Torkel's too early death is a great loss for his family, colleagues,
>and Usenet friends.
I too knew Torkel from Usetnet, have long appreciated his knowledge
and participation, and miss him already.
RIP.
J.
david petry
> > Franzen: "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments,
> > after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
> > "clear" any problem connected with them?"
> > Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to cooperate in the
> > sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
> > should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
>
> Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
>
> More people like that on Usenet please!
This seems rather too ignorant a view. Your comments, after all, are
just idiotic rambling. Why should we pay any attention to them?
Besides, what do you mean? Do you want people to mimic Franzen in the
sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why should
their rambling be relevant to your rambling?
Anyway, the above quotes are indeed good examples of the kind of verbal
volleyball Franzen used to play, but do we seriously want more of it?
Paul Holbach
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
Whenever I indulge in logical or mathematical reflection, thereby
getting in intellectual touch with that eternal abstract realm, wherein
death is not, I feel immortal too.
But sad news such as this one teach me once more that my temporary
feeling of immortality is utterly deceptive.
I want to express my sympathy with Torkel's family and friends!
Regards
PH
george
William of Ockham wrote:
> Terribly sad. As well as his contributions to the academic literature,
> Torkel had a tremendous energy for argument, at which he was clever,
> inventive and talented in many ways.
That was the icing. The cake was that he was a gifted expositor.
His students were very lucky to have him. The first question that
all this new information raises for me is, why was he a lecturer
in programing languages, when, since 1987, it had been obvious
that he could've been an assistant professor in something deeper?
The argument talent and the exposition talent seemed to sort of
come into conflict, towards the end. I viewed it as an unwelcome
devolution. On a couple of occasions, when I was angered that
TF seemed to be responding sadistically to someone's request
for an explanation, I would search back through the newsgroup
and discover (to my surprise, at first), that Torkel Franzen had in
fact Already Been the author of the best prior explanation in the
group,
back in 1990-something. I couldn't understand why he seemed
to be so understanding and careful then, and so caustic now.
Obviously if you are running out of time then brevity becomes more
important.
Equally obviously, since I didn't know that, I didn't know that I
should've
let him do it his (newer, nastier) way. Fortunately, he was not
deterred
by my personal mis-reactions.
> It was always amusing and
> entertaining to follow the twists and turns and inventive reversals of
> his arguments.
Only if you LIKE slasher flicks. TF was a gifted enough expositor
to know BETTER than most people that people's sincere requests for
information are NOT best treated as an opportunity for you to entertain
onlookers with twists.
> I have collected some of his threads,
And whatever shall you do with them?
Selectively and misleadingly quote individual messages of them,
out of context, to make him look bad? That is exactly what you did
in the message that follows.
george
Chris Menzel wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2006 06:27:04 -0700, erl...@bredband.net <erl...@bredband.net>
> said:
> > Torkel Franzen, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> > cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>
> What sad news. Torkel's postings to Usenet were consistently pitch
> perfect in their combination of wit, good humor,
"Consistently" my hairy light-brown ass.
Knowing how badly he was suffering certainly makes
it a lot more appropriate to commend his skill in inflicting
suffering, verbally, here, but the contrast between the
acerbic two-liners of the end and the great explanations
of years past was also part of the tragedy.
Nam Nguyen
george wrote:
> Chris Menzel wrote:
>
>>On 20 Apr 2006 06:27:04 -0700, erl...@bredband.net <erl...@bredband.net>
>>said:
>>
>>>Torkel Franzen, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
>>>cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>>
>>What sad news. Torkel's postings to Usenet were consistently pitch
>>perfect in their combination of wit, good humor,
>
>
> "Consistently" my hairy light-brown ass.
So is it TF's inconsistency of wit, or of good humour that you
disagree with CM's view here? Whatever your answer is, I hope
it has nothing to do TF's "acerbic two-liners of the end and the
great explanations of years past": because when you counter-claim
someone else's statement, *your counter-claim got to be relevant
to what is being countered*! Of all the people, I think you're the
one who should be aware of that. Let me give you an example of
what "consistency" means: it has been consistently predictable up to
now that the number GG's postings that are free of profanity, before
one that is not, is a *finite* number!
> Knowing how badly he was suffering certainly makes
> it a lot more appropriate to commend his skill in inflicting
> suffering, verbally, here, but the contrast between the
> acerbic two-liners of the end and the great explanations
> of years past was also part of the tragedy.
You're the one who told us about your past professor allegedly abused
your trust by lying to you about something in mathematics (IIRC).
You're the one who scorned certain people for "not keeping this house
[sci.logic] in order". Why do you think that your consistent
abusing profanity, instead of TF's style of contribution, would keep
this house in order?
--
----------------------------------------------------
Time passes, there is no way we can hold it back.
Why then do thoughts linger, long after everything
else is gone?
Ryokan
----------------------------------------------------
Nam Nguyen
david petry wrote:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>>"William of Ockham" <d3uc...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>>>Here is an example:
>
>
>>>Franzen: "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments,
>>>after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
>>>"clear" any problem connected with them?"
>
>
>>>Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to cooperate in the
>>>sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
>>>should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
>>
>>Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
>>
>>More people like that on Usenet please!
>
>
> This seems rather too ignorant a view. Your comments, after all, are
> just idiotic rambling. Why should we pay any attention to them?
Then, why should *you* pay attention to them in the first place,
by asking the question? [Isn't that a good example of
self-inconsistency!]
> Besides, what do you mean? Do you want people to mimic Franzen in the
> sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why should
> their rambling be relevant to your rambling?
>
> Anyway, the above quotes are indeed good examples of the kind of verbal
> volleyball Franzen used to play, but do we seriously want more of it?
Let's review an example of TF's "verbal volleyball" not too distant in
the past:
> I assume that by "nonfirstorderizable" you mean that the meaning of
>the English sentence cannot be captured in first order logic. Your
>description of the supposed procedure is odd in several ways. Where
>did you learn that "To show in general..."?
[... some post later, after the OP explained where he learnt of "To show
in general..."]
> By Lindström's theorem, first order logic is characterized by its
>logical closure properties together with the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem
>and the compactness theorem. So in one way or another, proofs that
>statements cannot be expressed in first order logic boil down to using
>these properties. Kaplan's argument in this case - which presupposes a
>particular interpretation of the odd statement "some critics admire
>only one another" - just takes a shortcut, using what we already know
>about the impossibility of characterizing {0,f(0),f(f(0)),...} in
>first order logic. It would be a good exercise to recast the argument
>as a proof from compactness.
I for one would rather have more of such a "verbal volleyball" faked
"ramblings" than a "genuine" diotic one about a new "foundation"
of mathematics that would "transfer" human knowldege to computers!
Ross A. Finlayson
Goedel's incompleteness makes a lot of sense, for theories axiomatized
finitely regular.
In a grander universe beyond those strictures, incompleteness is less
of a given, and that is essentially a post-Goedelian viewpoint.
Again, where some simple limitations are said to hold, that is about
Goedel's incompleteness results.
Torkel is respected here. I look forward to reading his book.
Ross Finlayson
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
person, but as a relatively early adopter of USENET (I started in 1988),
I soon encountered his razor-sharp mind on sci.logic. When scholarship
catches up to the real world and the story of USENET is properly told, I
believe that Torkel Franzen will emerge as a major figure, one always
ready to confront the Augean stables of nonsense on the newsgroups with
the river of his clear thought and wit. Google Groups estimates 25,000
articles written by him, and this is an underestimate since Google's
archive extends only so far back in time. It was always a guilty but
immensely entertaining pleasure to watch Torkel slice and dice a pompous
fool so deftly that the victim would not even realize how hard people were
laughing at him.
But Torkel did not limit himself to entertaining himself and others by
fencing with idiots. For those who really wanted to learn something, he
was always quick to supply precise, penetrating insights and answers. I
am personally indebted to him for his clarification of many of the common
confusions that plague beginners in logic. I bought his two recent books
as soon as they came out and was not disappointed; they are splendidly
written in his inimitable style, and fill voids that had remained in the
literature despite the many published expository accounts of Goedel's
theorem and related topics. I cannot resist quoting a hilarious line from
"Goedel's Theorem":
For any remaining instances of incompleteness or inconsistency in the
book, I consider myself entirely blameless, since after all, Goedel
proved that any book on the incompleteness theorem must be incomplete or
inconsistent.
The paragraph in the introduction to "Inexhaustibility" in which he
mentions his wife is one of the sweetest dedications I have ever read.
Though I know nothing of his wife beyond what is written there, my
sympathies go to her. The only small comfort I can offer is the
reassurance that though the world may have lost the unique, brilliant,
passionate, and witty Torkel Franzen, it will not forget him.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
Red
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
I was at the Goedel Centennial 2006 in Vienna. What I
say here should just be read as a personal report and not
as a complaint or a criticism of anybody.
I write it because I owe Torkel Franzen a lot: I learned
a lot of Goedels Theorem from his second book since
it put me in a broader perspective that I missed by reading
a lot of it in a more technical sense. But by no means have
I acquired the level of competence I see in this newsgroup.
I wish I came across of such a book about GT ten years
ago. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort.
I was not familiar with newsgroups. Torkel's book made
me curious of scientific newsgroups and at the beginning
of this year I started reading sci.logic liking his effort to
bring about precision. Then it really saddened me when
I read the post of his dead. But what shocked me
even more and left me speechless was the remark
of Charles L. Harper VP of Templeton who was
"looking forward in his speech to the talk of Torkel Franzen".
After the opening ceremony I talked to someone I knew
from sitting at the lunch table at the trip to Brno Goedels
birth place the day before. From overhearing a talk with
other people he must have been someone of the math
teaching community of the University of Vienna.
I asked him why Torkel Franzen was announced and
informed him of the death of Torkel Franzen. He just brushed
it off with an unfriendly harsh remark "das kann nicht sein!!"
[that can't be the case].
The next day at around noon Professor Solomon Feferman
dedicated his lecture to the memory of Torkel Franzen.
Since I was late after the 12:00 p.m. break and just arrived
when he made his dedication I don't know what else he said.
Red
Charlie-Boo
Phil Carmody wrote:
> "William of Ockham" <d3uc...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > Here is an example:
> >
> > XYZ: "AB finds also my language too difficult to understand. That is
> > no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem."
> >
> > Franzen: "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments,
> > after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
> > "clear" any problem connected with them?"
> >
> > XYZ: "I was rather too optimistic. I correct myself and say that we
> > can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING TO COOPERATE."
> >
> > Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to cooperate in the
> > sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
> > should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
>
> Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
>
> More people like that on Usenet please!
More use of phrases like "idiotic rambling"? How does that contribute
to a discussion?
Phil Carmody
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> > "William of Ockham" <d3uc...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > > Here is an example:
> > >
> > > XYZ: "AB finds also my language too difficult to understand. That is
> > > no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem."
> > >
> > > Franzen: "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments,
> > > after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
> > > "clear" any problem connected with them?"
> > >
> > > XYZ: "I was rather too optimistic. I correct myself and say that we
> > > can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING TO COOPERATE."
> > >
> > > Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to cooperate in the
> > > sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
> > > should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
> >
> > Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
> >
> > More people like that on Usenet please!
>
> More use of phrases like "idiotic rambling"? How does that contribute
> to a discussion?
It is an indicator to the posters of the idiotic rambling that
what they mistakenly think is mathematics is nothing more than
idiotic ramblings. This can help them decide whether they wish
to
a) STFU; and/or
b) RTFM; or
c) continue posting idiotic ramblings.
Now we can see that (a) contributes a reduction in noise to
signal ratio in the discussions; that (b) contributes to the
education of the prior idiotic rambler, and thus can help him
stop such idiotic ramblings, thus contributing positively to
the discussion, and only (c) fails to so contribute. HOwever,
that is entirely the fault of the idiotic rambler idiotically
rambling his idiotic ramblings.
Now since I seem to remember you were in my killfile before
emacs swallowed it again, I can only assume that this thread
is particularly close to home for you, as, to be perfectly
frank, you really are an idiot, and you do spend an inordinate
amount of time rambling.
*plonk*
Rupert
erl...@bredband.net wrote:
> Torkel Franzén, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>
> Technology, Sweden.
> He taught programming courses, mostly using Java and Prolog. He earned
> his PhD in 2004. His thesis (in philosophy) was titled "Provability and
> Truth". He also wrote books, such as "Gödel's Theorem. An Incomplete
> Guide to Its Use and Abuse", which appeared in 2005.
>
> Gödel's Theorem was indeed one of his major interests. He wrote many
> Usenet posts on this and related subjects, but he did also write posts
> on many other subjects.
>
> and Usenet friends.
>
>
> Department of Mathematics
> Luleå University of Technology
> Sweden
I'm really sorry to hear this. I really enjoyed reading Torkel
Franzen's posts. He was a very clear thinker and helped me out with a
lot of questions about logic.
Charlie-Boo
Phil Carmody wrote:
> "Charlie-Boo" <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Phil Carmody wrote:
> > > "William of Ockham" <d3uc...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > > > Here is an example:
> > > >
> > > > XYZ: "AB finds also my language too difficult to understand. That is
> > > > no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem."
> > > >
> > > > Franzen: "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments,
> > > > after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
> > > > "clear" any problem connected with them?"
> > > >
> > > > XYZ: "I was rather too optimistic. I correct myself and say that we
> > > > can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING TO COOPERATE."
> > > >
> > > > Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to cooperate in the
> > > > sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
> > > > should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
> > >
> > > Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
> > >
> > > More people like that on Usenet please!
> >
> > More use of phrases like "idiotic rambling"? How does that contribute
> > to a discussion?
>
> It is an indicator to the posters of the idiotic rambling that
> what they mistakenly think is mathematics is nothing more than
> idiotic ramblings.
But it is unsubstantiated. Is that reasonable discourse in an academic
environment? Wouldn't it be better to give a logical basis for that
belief?
> This can help them decide whether they wish
> to
> a) STFU; and/or
Isn't that an acronym for cheap gutter talk? Do you really believe
that is appropriate for this forum? Surely you don't believe that "the
end justifies the means", do you?
> b) RTFM; or
> c) continue posting idiotic ramblings.
> Now we can see that (a) contributes a reduction in noise to
> signal ratio in the discussions; that (b) contributes to the
> education of the prior idiotic rambler,
How does telling someone to shut up (besides being completely
unprofessional - even rude) contribute to anyone's education concerning
the technical issues being discussed?
> and thus can help him
> stop such idiotic ramblings, thus contributing positively to
> the discussion,
But what if Torkel is wrong? Shouldn't he give a logical basis for his
belief, so that it may be challenged? Simply making an emotional
insult doesn't seem to me to be the work of one who is contributing at
all - whether from a lack of anything to say or because he is more
concerned about fulfilling some sort of emotional need rather than an
academic pursuit.
> and only (c) fails to so contribute. HOwever,
> that is entirely the fault of the idiotic rambler idiotically
> rambling his idiotic ramblings.
I beg your pardon? You are saying that Torkel shouldn't take
responsibility for his own actions. It sounds like he is responding to
a sincere effort to contribute with insults having no apparent value to
the discussion.
> Now since I seem to remember you were in my killfile before
> emacs swallowed it again, I can only assume that this thread
> is particularly close to home for you, as, to be perfectly
> frank, you really are an idiot, and you do spend an inordinate
> amount of time rambling.
I see no mathematical content to anything you have said. In fact, it
doesn't even pass the test of common courtesy, IMHO.
Good day.
C-B
Chris Menzel
>> > ...
Torkel was pretty much never wrong about technical issues in logic, and
he was unerring in the detection idiotic ramblings.
Curt Welch
> But what if Torkel is wrong? Shouldn't he give a logical basis for his
> belief, so that it may be challenged?
Are you really that clueless and insensitive? Do you realize that the
title of this thread is not a joke? He did actually die and he will no
longer be bothering you so it's not very important what you think he should
do at this point.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
LordBeotian
Wolf Kirchmeir
I've tried a couple of times to help an idiotic rambler understand why
his "mathematics" was idiotic rambling. Didn't work. Idiotic ramblers
are peculiarly impervious to logic.
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
I think we're bound by the dictum "de mortuis nil nisi bonum".
Personally I see nothing wrong with discusssing the issue critically
in terms you lay out here. But not specifically in relation to what
Torkel may or may not have said and what he may or may not have
intended by what he said addressed to various individuals. My own
discussions with him were pretty much couched in terms of fnoffling
by which I understood him to disparage what I was saying. But the
manipulative skill he demonstrated was just clever enough to avoid
the petty mindedness exhibited by so many who disagree on these
groups. If you wish to pursue the topic further I suggest you show the
good manners to abstract the issue from Torkel himself. At least then
we can get down to brass tacks of demagoguery. Torkel could be funny.
I'll give him that even if we didn't necessarily agree.
~v~~
Lester Zick
<cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
And Torkel unlike most others was very careful not to get directly
involved in technical issues in logic or anything else where he wasn't
necessarily quite so unerring in the detection of idiotic ramblings.
~v~~
Lester Zick
So are you. You've tried to show quite a few more than just idiotic
ramblers why their mathematics was idiotic rambling. That's the
problem with idiotic rambling. It's difficult to be sure exactly who
the idiotic rambler is. You're pretty much always of the opinion that
you're never the idiotic rambler. The rest of us are less confident.
~v~~
MoeBlee
> I think we're bound by the dictum "de mortuis nil nisi bonum".
> Personally I see nothing wrong with discusssing the issue critically
> in terms you lay out here. But not specifically in relation to what
> Torkel may or may not have said and what he may or may not have
> intended by what he said addressed to various individuals. My own
> discussions with him were pretty much couched in terms of fnoffling
> by which I understood him to disparage what I was saying. But the
> manipulative skill he demonstrated was just clever enough to avoid
> the petty mindedness exhibited by so many who disagree on these
> groups. If you wish to pursue the topic further I suggest you show the
> good manners to abstract the issue from Torkel himself. At least then
> we can get down to brass tacks of demagoguery. Torkel could be funny.
> I'll give him that even if we didn't necessarily agree.
What demagoguery? If there are brass tacks to be gotten down to here,
then those would not be in examination of the Form of Demagoguery but
in particular examples of purported demagoguery in particular posts. If
there is a suggestion that Franzen's postings recommend the subject of
demagoguery, then I'd like to know who it is you think used demagoguery
and what posts you adduce as examples. And I don't think we have to
observe some special propriety given that the man is recently dead. I
can't speak for other appreciators of Franzen, but for me, I would find
it less appropriate to have a subject broached only to cloud as
suggestion or insinuation than to have it spoken frankly.
MoeBlee
MoeBlee
> That's the
> problem with idiotic rambling. It's difficult to be sure exactly who
> the idiotic rambler is.
I don't think 'idiotic' is always the right word. But I think
mathematics (though less so for philosophy of mathematics) is a subject
- perhaps the quintessential one - in which we can more readily detect
that the spiel is nonsensical, or error ridden, or stubborn and
foolish, or utterly uniformed.
MoeBlee
William of Ockham
> And I don't think we have to
> observe some special propriety given that the man is recently dead. I
> can't speak for other appreciators of Franzen, but for me, I would find
> it less appropriate to have a subject broached only to cloud as
> suggestion or insinuation than to have it spoken frankly.
Seeing as he spent most of his career arguing on usenet groups,
bringing it almost to an art form, having an argument about him seems a
pretty good way of showing respect. In my view.
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> I think we're bound by the dictum "de mortuis nil nisi bonum".
>> Personally I see nothing wrong with discusssing the issue critically
>> in terms you lay out here. But not specifically in relation to what
>> Torkel may or may not have said and what he may or may not have
>> intended by what he said addressed to various individuals. My own
>> discussions with him were pretty much couched in terms of fnoffling
>> by which I understood him to disparage what I was saying. But the
>> manipulative skill he demonstrated was just clever enough to avoid
>> the petty mindedness exhibited by so many who disagree on these
>> groups. If you wish to pursue the topic further I suggest you show the
>> good manners to abstract the issue from Torkel himself. At least then
>> we can get down to brass tacks of demagoguery. Torkel could be funny.
>> I'll give him that even if we didn't necessarily agree.
>
>What demagoguery?
You've never seen or experienced demagoguery on the usenet? You've got
to be kidding. I see almost nothing but appeals to popular prejudice.
Maybe that's because I deal in original thoughts and you don't.
> If there are brass tacks to be gotten down to here,
>then those would not be in examination of the Form of Demagoguery but
>in particular examples of purported demagoguery in particular posts. If
>there is a suggestion that Franzen's postings recommend the subject of
>demagoguery, then I'd like to know who it is you think used demagoguery
>and what posts you adduce as examples.
As noted above I have no information on the subject vis-a-vis Torkel
and certainly wouldn't bring it up here if I thought I had.My exhanges
with Torkel were limited to fnoffling.
> And I don't think we have to
>observe some special propriety given that the man is recently dead.
And I think we do since he is no longer among us. Especially in the
context of commemorative comments.
> I
>can't speak for other appreciators of Franzen, but for me, I would find
>it less appropriate to have a subject broached only to cloud as
>suggestion or insinuation than to have it spoken frankly.
There is no insinuation on my part. I said exactly what I had to say
in commemorative terms and strongly urged others to remove their
critical discussions to other venues.
~v~~
Lester Zick
<d3uc...@btinternet.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Well that's certainly a reasonable objective. My problem is that I
only have the one series of comments regarding fnoffling to draw on
so there really isn't much I can contribute except to note the fact of
wittiness apparent even in those ambiguous observations. On the more
general subject of demagoguery and character assassination however
there is a wealth of material available though not necessarily related
to Torkel.
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> That's the
>> problem with idiotic rambling. It's difficult to be sure exactly who
>> the idiotic rambler is.
>
>I don't think 'idiotic' is always the right word.
Pejorative terms are almost invariably self referential and usually
self reverential. Next to scientists idiots always make the best idiot
detectors.
> But I think
>mathematics (though less so for philosophy of mathematics) is a subject
>- perhaps the quintessential one - in which we can more readily detect
>that the spiel is nonsensical, or error ridden, or stubborn and
>foolish, or utterly uniformed.
Well this is indeed curious.Certainly mathematics is an unusually well
structured edifice. That does not however mean that mathematicians are
comparably well structured. They rant and rave, whine and snivel, and
jump up and down like scalded monkeys just like everyone else when
their own ox is gored. I take it you've beeen sequestered in a Tibetan
monastery the last couple of years or you would have noticed my own
revisionist contributions on such topics as universal truth, finite
tautological regressions, derivatives of cross products in angular
momentum, the absence of any single real number line in formal terms,
irrational and transcendental numbers, the analytical origin of
Planck's constant, Turing computability and intelligence, and the non
computability of numbers etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum all of which were
posted to sci.math and all of which received uniformly rave reviews,
the emphasis here being on "rave" as a code word for "reactionary"
among mathematkers of every stripe.
Unfortunately Torkel had little to say regarding these topics and
confined his remarks to anonymous and ambiguous references to
fnoffling so I don't have much quarrel with anything he said since he
didn't really say it. But plenty of others have and I've had plenty to
say about what they chose to say and I've said plenty about it. The
problem seems to be divorcing mathematics from the opinions of
mathematikers and what has been demonstrated from what hasn't.
I notice you leave yourself an escape hatch above in distinguishing
math from the philosophy of math. But to me it's all science and those
who prefer to indulge their own flights of fancy in mathematics are no
better qualified to judge one from the other than idiotic ramblers.
~v~~
MoeBlee
> You've never seen or experienced demagoguery on the usenet?
Of course I have. My question is what particular demagoguery you have
in mind in connection with Franzen.
> You've got
> to be kidding. I see almost nothing but appeals to popular prejudice.
Yes, I see much too much of that on the Internet and in public
discourse in general. But, again, I don't know what specifically you
have in mind in connection with Franzen.
> Maybe that's because I deal in original thoughts and you don't.
How do you conclude that I have no original thoughts, or whatever it is
that you claim about my lack of originality? It's true that I have very
little that is original to say about mathematics, since mathematics is
not the subject of my creative endeavors, but at this juncture in the
discusssion, we're not talking about mathematics so much as the subject
of discourse itself. In that regard, what are your original thoughts on
discourse and demagoguery?
> As noted above I have no information on the subject vis-a-vis Torkel
> and certainly wouldn't bring it up here if I thought I had.
You mentioned demagoguery and brass tacks that can be gotten down to
about that subject. I'm just asking what you mean by that in connection
with Franzen (otherwise why would you even mention it in a thread about
Franzen?). If you don't want to use this thread to make clear what you
mentioned in this thread, then you can do it in another thread. Or, as
is your freedom, you can choose not to make clear in any thread. But
then I'll remark that your mention of Franzen in connection with
demagoguery is indeed left by you as dangling and unsubstantiated as to
whatever it is even supposed to mean.
> My exhanges
> with Torkel were limited to fnoffling.
What is fnoffling? I've read the word in several threads, but I don't
know what it means and can't find a definition.
> > And I don't think we have to
> >observe some special propriety given that the man is recently dead.
> And I think we do since he is no longer among us. Especially in the
> context of commemorative comments.
I don't think it is reasonable that a person having passed away (even
recently) entails that we ought not critically discuss the person.
Otherwise, no one could talk about anyone who ever died (or recently
died). But I do understand that one would not want to include such
commentary in certain threads such as this one.
> There is no insinuation on my part. I said exactly what I had to say
> in commemorative terms and strongly urged others to remove their
> critical discussions to other venues.
Perhaps there is no insinuation. But then I just don't know what your
point was in mentioning demagoguery in connection with Franzen. Whether
in this thread or some other thread, only you can make clear (let alone
substantiate) whatever it is you mean. Otherwise, as I said, your
remark is just, to put it politely, a cloud.
MoeBlee
MoeBlee
> Pejorative terms are almost invariably self referential and usually
> self reverential. Next to scientists idiots always make the best idiot
> detectors.
As I understand, you are saying that pejoratives "almost invariably"
would be more accurately directed at the speaker. I don't know what
basis you have for that. It is not my observation that, in threads on
logic and mathematics, pejoratives such as 'incoherent', 'word salad',
'uniformed gibberish', etc. are "almost invariably" misdirected.
> > But I think
> >mathematics (though less so for philosophy of mathematics) is a subject
> >- perhaps the quintessential one - in which we can more readily detect
> >that the spiel is nonsensical, or error ridden, or stubborn and
> >foolish, or utterly uniformed.
> Well this is indeed curious.Certainly mathematics is an unusually well
> structured edifice. That does not however mean that mathematicians are
> comparably well structured. They rant and rave, whine and snivel, and
> jump up and down like scalded monkeys just like everyone else when
> their own ox is gored.
I never said that mathematicians aren't often unreasonable (if that is
what you think I had claimed). I just said that the subject matter of
mathematics lends itself better to detecting when someone is
bullshitting about the subject than do other subjects.
> I take it you've beeen sequestered in a Tibetan
> monastery the last couple of years or you would have noticed my own
> revisionist contributions on such topics as universal truth, finite
> tautological regressions, derivatives of cross products in angular
> momentum, the absence of any single real number line in formal terms,
> irrational and transcendental numbers, the analytical origin of
> Planck's constant, Turing computability and intelligence, and the non
> computability of numbers etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum
I don't see your point. I don't know what my knowledge, or lack of it,
of your mathematical postings has to do with any comments I made.
> all of which were
> posted to sci.math and all of which received uniformly rave reviews,
> the emphasis here being on "rave" as a code word for "reactionary"
> among mathematkers of every stripe.
I guess you're saying that your posts didn't get a fair hearing. So?
Even if they did not, I didn't claim that critical posters are always
fair. I just commented - in response to your comment "It's difficult to
be sure exactly who the idiotic rambler is" - that the difficulties are
much less, or we can more readily detect, in mathematics than in other
subjects
> Unfortunately Torkel had little to say regarding these topics and
> confined his remarks to anonymous and ambiguous references to
> fnoffling so I don't have much quarrel with anything he said since he
> didn't really say it. But plenty of others have and I've had plenty to
> say about what they chose to say and I've said plenty about it.
If you got a bum deal, then I'm sorry that you did.
> The
> problem seems to be divorcing mathematics from the opinions of
> mathematikers and what has been demonstrated from what hasn't.
My point is that certain matters of mathematics itself (not including
philosophy about mathematics) are not matters of opinion. Indeed, what
has been demonstrated and what hasn't can with few exceptions, be
evaluated objectively.
> I notice you leave yourself an escape hatch above in distinguishing
> math from the philosophy of math.
I don't wish to make sweeping overgeneralizations, so of course I may
mention exceptions, qualifications, or important distinctions. That
seems quite reasonable to me and thus at least a bit cagey to call it
"leaving myself an escape hatch".
> But to me it's all science and those
> who prefer to indulge their own flights of fancy in mathematics are no
> better qualified to judge one from the other than idiotic ramblers.
I don't know what you mean by "indulge flights of fancy". You mentioned
demonstration. Those who clearly state what qualifies as demonstration
(or use methods restricted to those that can be, if necessary, clearly
stated) and then demonstrate with strict respect to that statement
deserve to be recognized for having done that. Those who do not clearly
state, let alone do not state at all, what qualifies as demonstration
and then make arguments that cannot be objectively evaluated due lack
of context of such a statement (or reasonable presumption that such a
statement could be made if required) deserve to be called out for,
contrary to their own claims, not having provided mathematical
demonstrations.
MoeBlee
Chris Menzel
<lester...@worldnet.att.net> said:
> That's the problem with idiotic rambling. It's difficult to be sure
> exactly who the idiotic rambler is.
Only for the idiot.
Wolf Kirchmeir
[...]
> I don't know what you mean by "indulge flights of fancy". You mentioned
> demonstration. Those who clearly state what qualifies as demonstration
> (or use methods restricted to those that can be, if necessary, clearly
> stated) and then demonstrate with strict respect to that statement
> deserve to be recognized for having done that. Those who do not clearly
> state, let alone do not state at all, what qualifies as demonstration
> and then make arguments that cannot be objectively evaluated due lack
> of context of such a statement (or reasonable presumption that such a
> statement could be made if required) deserve to be called out for,
> contrary to their own claims, not having provided mathematical
> demonstrations.
>
> MoeBlee
>
Lester is a first class crank.
And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
MoeBlee
> And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
What is fnoffling? Is it a Swedish word? Is it speaking doubletalk or
nonsense or something like that?
MoeBlee
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I don't see your point. I don't know what my knowledge, or lack of it,
> of your mathematical postings has to do with any comments I made.
You have not missed a thing. Just about everything Zick posts is
balderdash. Ask him what a finite tautological regression is sometime.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Lester is a first class crank.
>
> And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
A practicioner of fnard, as well.
Bob Kolekr
William of Ockham
Glen M. Sizemore
"MoeBlee" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146875235.1...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>> And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
>
> What is fnoffling?
It is a name given to a guitar style resembling that of the guy from the
Sultans of Schawinggggg.
Herman Jurjus
> Yes, what is fnoffling? Is it something to do with truffle hounds?
Perhaps something like the discussion style below?
===
From: Torkel Franzén
Date: Thurs, Aug 23 2001 12:45 pm
Email: tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén)
Groups: sci.logic
George Greene <gree...@eagle.cs.unc.edu> writes:
> tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén) writes:
> : Peano Arithmetic is trivially consistent, since it is trivially
> : sound, i.e. by a trivial proof in ordinary mathematics,
> ANY proof that involves epsilon-zero induction IS NOT
> "a trivial proof in ordinary mathematics".
Gnoffo?
===
From: Torkel Franzén
Date: Thurs, Aug 23 2001 12:46 pm
Email: tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén)
Groups: sci.logic
George Greene <gree...@eagle.cs.unc.edu> writes:
> tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén) writes:
> : You have in mind Hilbert's program? The incompleteness theorem did
> : indeed show that Hilbert's program as originally conceived cannot be
> : carried through, but this does not mean that the consistency of PA
can
> : only be proved in stronger theories than PA.
> Of course it does.
Blorf gwongo?
===
From: Torkel Franzén
Date: Thurs, Aug 23 2001 12:46 pm
Email: tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén)
Groups: sci.logic
George Greene <gree...@eagle.cs.unc.edu> writes:
> tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén) writes:
> : No,
> Lying. Yes, he is suggesting exactly that.
Fnordol gollywump?
===
From: Torkel Franzén
Date: Thurs, Aug 23 2001 12:47 pm
Email: tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén)
Groups: sci.logic
George Greene <gree...@eagle.cs.unc.edu> writes:
> tor...@scheutz.sics.se (Torkel Franzén) writes:
> : But if you worry about the proof of "PA is consistent",
> : you should worry just as much about mathematical proofs in general.
> This is ridiculous.
Gwoggo sloboff?
===
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Charlie-Boo
Proof?
Charlie-Boo
> Chris Menzel wrote:
> > On 20 Apr 2006 06:27:04 -0700, erl...@bredband.net <erl...@bredband.net>
> > said:
> > > Torkel Franzen, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
> > > cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
> >
> > What sad news. Torkel's postings to Usenet were consistently pitch
> > perfect in their combination of wit, good humor,
>
> "Consistently" my hairy light-brown ass.
> Knowing how badly he was suffering certainly makes
> it a lot more appropriate to commend his skill in inflicting
> suffering, verbally, here,
Whether he successfully inflicted verbal suffering is debatable, but
it is certainly not commendable to do such. Perhaps Torkel at times
considered that - even wished he did avoid such behavior.
> but the contrast between the
> acerbic two-liners of the end and the great explanations
> of years past was also part of the tragedy.
You are absolutely correct - except that is an understatement. The
problem was his dark side vs his brilliant side. That IS the tragedy -
and now those who commend such behavior (and make separting the two all
the more difficult.)
To say that his skill was in inflicting suffering is an insult to
Torkel at this time of sorrow. Rather it was in his providing
illumination.
C-B
Wolf Kirchmeir
> William of Ockham wrote:
>> Yes, what is fnoffling? Is it something to do with truffle hounds?
>
> Perhaps something like the discussion style below?
Chfularly!
However, fnoffling is often disguised (by using English words, for example.)
Charlie-Boo
> "I do tend to feel Hughes & Cresswell is a more authoritative
> source than you." (David C. Ullrich)
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the
humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei
(Isn't it amazing how many well-respected authors he contradicts?)
Charlie-Boo
> Here is an example:
>
> XYZ: "AB finds also my language too difficult to understand. That is
> no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem." Franzen:
> "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments, after all, are
> just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to "clear" any problem
> connected with them?" XYZ: "I was rather too optimistic. I correct
> myself and say that we can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING
> TO COOPERATE."
Good point. Shouldn't one cooperate? Is TF cooperating?
> Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to
> cooperate in the sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But
> then, why should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
One can call "idiotic rambing" constructive if they wish, but surely
repeating oneself is pointless, isnt it?
All of this discussion about stupid comments, and not a word about his
technical points! His grasp of Godel's 2nd Theorem (and its
successors) seemed unsurpassed - although he WAS weak on Godel's 1st!
C-B
Charlie-Boo
david petry wrote:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> > "William of Ockham" <d3uc...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > > Here is an example:
>
> > > after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
> > > "clear" any problem connected with them?"
>
> > > sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
> > > should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
> >
> >
> > More people like that on Usenet please!
>
> just idiotic rambling. Why should we pay any attention to them?
>
> Besides, what do you mean? Do you want people to mimic Franzen in the
> sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why should
> their rambling be relevant to your rambling?
>
> volleyball Franzen used to play, but do we seriously want more of it?
That's right. Why waste time with that shit?
Charlie-Boo
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> > "William of Ockham" <d3uc...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > > Here is an example:
>
> > > Franzen: "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments,
> > > after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
> > > "clear" any problem connected with them?"
>
> > > Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to cooperate in the
> > > sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
> > > should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
> >
> > Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
> >
> > More people like that on Usenet please!
>
> This seems rather too ignorant a view. Your comments, after all, are
> just idiotic rambling. Why should we pay any attention to them?
>
> Besides, what do you mean? Do you want people to mimic Franzen in the
> sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why should
> their rambling be relevant to your rambling?
> the above quotes are indeed good examples of the kind of verbal
> volleyball Franzen used to play, but do we seriously want more of it?
Of course not.
Charlie-Boo
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Au revoir, Torkel.
>
> Goedel's incompleteness makes a lot of sense, for theories axiomatized
> finitely regular.
>
> In a grander universe beyond those strictures, incompleteness is less
> of a given, and that is essentially a post-Goedelian viewpoint.
Where is it not given?
C-B
> Again, where some simple limitations are said to hold, that is about
> Goedel's incompleteness results.
>
> Torkel is respected here. I look forward to reading his book.
>
> Ross Finlayson
Charlie-Boo
tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
> The news of Torkel Franzen's death came as a shock. I never met him in
> person, but as a relatively early adopter of USENET (I started in 1988),
> I soon encountered his razor-sharp mind on sci.logic. When scholarship
> catches up to the real world and the story of USENET is properly told, I
> believe that Torkel Franzen will emerge as a major figure, one always
> ready to confront the Augean stables of nonsense on the newsgroups with
> the river of his clear thought and wit. Google Groups estimates 25,000
> articles written by him, and this is an underestimate since Google's
> archive extends only so far back in time. It was always a guilty but
> immensely entertaining pleasure to watch Torkel slice and dice a pompous
> fool so deftly that the victim would not even realize how hard people were
> laughing at him.
>
> But Torkel did not limit himself to entertaining himself and others by
> fencing with idiots. For those who really wanted to learn something, he
> was always quick to supply precise, penetrating insights and answers.
No, that, his smugness, was one of his weaknesses.
> I am personally indebted to him for his clarification of many of the common
> confusions that plague beginners in logic. I bought his two recent books
> as soon as they came out and was not disappointed; they are splendidly
> written in his inimitable style, and fill voids that had remained in the
> literature despite the many published expository accounts of Goedel's
> theorem and related topics. I cannot resist quoting a hilarious line from
> "Goedel's Theorem":
>
> For any remaining instances of incompleteness or inconsistency in the
> book, I consider myself entirely blameless, since after all, Goedel
> proved that any book on the incompleteness theorem must be incomplete or
> inconsistent.
>
> The paragraph in the introduction to "Inexhaustibility" in which he
> mentions his wife is one of the sweetest dedications I have ever read.
> Though I know nothing of his wife beyond what is written there, my
> sympathies go to her. The only small comfort I can offer is the
> reassurance that though the world may have lost the unique, brilliant,
> passionate, and witty Torkel Franzen, it will not forget him.
> --
> Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
> The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
> never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
> the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
Charlie-Boo
> "Charlie-Boo" <shyma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But what if Torkel is wrong? Shouldn't he give a logical basis for his
> > belief, so that it may be challenged?
>
> Are you really that clueless and insensitive? Do you realize that the
> title of this thread is not a joke? He did actually die and he will no
> longer be bothering you so it's not very important what you think he should
> do at this point.
It is always appropriate to question the wisdom of our leaders - in
times of both war and peace. It is a waste of time to endlessly
discuss and praise verbal abuse. It is a distraction from the good
that Torkel contributed and an insult to place it high in his list of
achievements.
C-B
PS It was an honor to be bothered by Torkel and something I too will
miss, needless to say.
> --
> Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
> cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
Charlie-Boo
> On 3 May 2006 17:26:50 -0700, Charlie-Boo said:
> > But what if Torkel is wrong?
> Torkel was ... never wrong ... and was unerring
> in the detection idiotic ramblings.
Hallelujah!
When was he ever right when he made that accusation and by what logic?
"In philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as
to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly." - Alfred North
Whitehead
C-B
(Your sequence of words "the detection idiotic ramblings" has no
meaning in English. Errors come in many forms. Such sweet irony!)
ste...@nomail.com
> "MoeBlee" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1146875235.1...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>> And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
>>
>> What is fnoffling?
> It is a name given to a guitar style resembling that of the guy from the
> Sultans of Schawinggggg.
No, that is knopfling.
Stephen
Charlie-Boo
> On 3 May 2006 17:26:50 -0700, "Charlie-Boo" <shyma...@gmail.com> in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >
> >Phil Carmody wrote:
> >> "Charlie-Boo" <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > > "William of Ockham" <d3uc...@btinternet.com> writes:
> >> > > > Here is an example:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > after all, are just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to
> >> > > > "clear" any problem connected with them?"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING TO COOPERATE."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But then, why
> >> > > > should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
> >> > >
> >> > > Wonderful. Thanks for hunting that out.
> >> > >
> >> > > More people like that on Usenet please!
> >> >
> >> > to a discussion?
> >>
> >> It is an indicator to the posters of the idiotic rambling that
> >> what they mistakenly think is mathematics is nothing more than
> >> idiotic ramblings.
> >
> >But it is unsubstantiated. Is that reasonable discourse in an academic
> >belief?
>
> I think we're bound by the dictum "de mortuis nil nisi bonum".
"The Latin tag de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est . . . refers
to the principle of British, American, and other legal systems that
defaming a deceased person is not actionable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_bonum
To speak only good of Torkel would be to refer only to his technical
contributions, not his emotional outbursts. That does not serve his
legacy.
> Personally I see nothing wrong with discusssing the issue critically
> in terms you lay out here. But not specifically in relation to what
> Torkel may or may not have said and what he may or may not have
> intended
If not by word or intent, then in what context?
> If you wish to pursue the topic further I suggest you show the
> good manners to abstract the issue from Torkel himself.
'eh? And who's not so keen on good manners around here?
> At least then
> we can get down to brass tacks of demagoguery. Torkel could be funny.
> I'll give him that even if we didn't necessarily agree.
No argument!
C-B
> ~v~~
~~
who's there?
Charlie-Boo
> mathematics is a subject
> - perhaps the quintessential one - in which we can more readily detect
> that the spiel is stubborn or utterly uniformed.
Stubbornness is a psychological trait, being uninformed in particular
is a state of mind, not of mathematics. (THAT'S the problem.)
C-B
> MoeBlee
Charlie-Boo
> > And I don't think we have to
> > can't speak for other appreciators of Franzen, but for me, I would find
> > it less appropriate to have a subject broached only to cloud as
> > suggestion or insinuation than to have it spoken frankly.
> Seeing as he spent most of his career arguing on usenet groups,
> bringing it almost to an art form, having an argument about him seems a
> pretty good way of showing respect.
Quite the epitaph.
Charlie-Boo
> On 5 May 2006 01:42:15 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazz...@hotmail.com> in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >What demagoguery?
> You've never seen or experienced demagoguery on the usenet? You've got
> to be kidding. I see almost nothing but appeals to popular prejudice.
To the point that the poster who is technically correct must also
appeal to these prejudices. The honest politician is not elected (and
we complain about corruption in politics . . .)
C-B
> Maybe that's because I deal in original thoughts and you don't.
> ~v~~
Aatu Koskensilta
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>I've tried a couple of times to help an idiotic rambler understand why
>>his "mathematics" was idiotic rambling. Didn't work. Idiotic ramblers
>>are peculiarly impervious to logic.
>
> Proof?
Come on, Charlie, you know all about idiotic rambling and imperviousness
to logic.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta
> All of this discussion about stupid comments, and not a word about his
> technical points! His grasp of Godel's 2nd Theorem (and its
> successors) seemed unsurpassed - although he WAS weak on Godel's 1st!
I'm sure you would know. How did this weakness ever manifest?
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Wolf is notoriously immune to proof.
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> You've never seen or experienced demagoguery on the usenet?
>
>Of course I have. My question is what particular demagoguery you have
>in mind in connection with Franzen.
I didn't mention demagoguery in connection with Torkel. I mentioned it
in connection with self appointed "idiotic rambling" detectors. That's
why I recommended divorcing the subject from the person. As far as I
know Torkel was only a self appointed "fnoffling" detector.
>> You've got
>> to be kidding. I see almost nothing but appeals to popular prejudice.
>
>Yes, I see much too much of that on the Internet and in public
>discourse in general. But, again, I don't know what specifically you
>have in mind in connection with Franzen.
Which is exactly why I strongly urged divorcing the subject from
commemorative comments on the man even though others seem to feel
this is an appropriate way to commemorate the man.
>> Maybe that's because I deal in original thoughts and you don't.
>
>How do you conclude that I have no original thoughts, or whatever it is
>that you claim about my lack of originality? It's true that I have very
>little that is original to say about mathematics, since mathematics is
>not the subject of my creative endeavors, but at this juncture in the
>discusssion, we're not talking about mathematics so much as the subject
>of discourse itself.
I don't actually know whether you do or don't have original thoughts.
But I suspect you don't only because original thinkers are routinely
subject to accusations of idiotic rambling. It's an easy accusation to
make and a difficult accusation to defend.
> In that regard, what are your original thoughts on
>discourse and demagoguery?
Well this is curious. The fact is that over the last several years
I've changed tacks on this subject. Time was I regarded new and
exotic approaches to science and mathematics be introduced with
decorum worthy of the subject. Subsequently however I've come to view
treatments as more appropriately introduced with as much contentious
strife as possible. Those who accept the status quo are pretty much
uncritical inept believers who won't be much impressed by any new
thinking regardless of its justification.But they do help get the word
out with all their shouting, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
>> As noted above I have no information on the subject vis-a-vis Torkel
>> and certainly wouldn't bring it up here if I thought I had.
>
>You mentioned demagoguery and brass tacks that can be gotten down to
>about that subject. I'm just asking what you mean by that in connection
>with Franzen (otherwise why would you even mention it in a thread about
>Franzen?).
I didn't bring it up in connection with Torkel but in connection with
another individual who seemed intent on trying to convert what is
essentially a commemorative thread into a rankorous discussion of
whatever Torkel may or may not have said about the ideas of others.
> If you don't want to use this thread to make clear what you
>mentioned in this thread, then you can do it in another thread.
Thanks a lot, sport, since that's exactly what I recommended to the
other responder.
> Or, as
>is your freedom, you can choose not to make clear in any thread. But
>then I'll remark that your mention of Franzen in connection with
>demagoguery is indeed left by you as dangling and unsubstantiated as to
>whatever it is even supposed to mean.
I never mentioned Torkel in connection with demagoguery as I've made
clear repeatedly but I'm beginning to think I should mention you in
connection with demagoguery since you steadfastly refuse to read what
I wrote as written in reply to someone who was inappropriately trying
to make that connection on what is essentially a commemorative thread.
>> My exhanges
>> with Torkel were limited to fnoffling.
>
>What is fnoffling? I've read the word in several threads, but I don't
>know what it means and can't find a definition.
I have no idea what "fnoffling" means in general or meant specifically
in Torkel's lexicon. I took it to indicate a soft spoken disparagement
of what I had to say on a variety of subjects where Torkel disagreed
but was unwilling or unable to make his disagreement more explicit.
>> > And I don't think we have to
>> >observe some special propriety given that the man is recently dead.
>
>> And I think we do since he is no longer among us. Especially in the
>> context of commemorative comments.
>
>I don't think it is reasonable that a person having passed away (even
>recently) entails that we ought not critically discuss the person.
>Otherwise, no one could talk about anyone who ever died (or recently
>died). But I do understand that one would not want to include such
>commentary in certain threads such as this one.
Which is exactly what I've been saying to those intent on turning this
kind of thread into a debating forum.
>> There is no insinuation on my part. I said exactly what I had to say
>> in commemorative terms and strongly urged others to remove their
>> critical discussions to other venues.
>
>Perhaps there is no insinuation. But then I just don't know what your
>point was in mentioning demagoguery in connection with Franzen.
Then I encourage you to reread exactly what I wrote not in connection
with Torkel but in reply to those who posted such comments. The fact
is that I never had enough critical discussion with Torkel to know
what he thought or didn't think of what I wrote in critical terms.
> Whether
>in this thread or some other thread, only you can make clear (let alone
>substantiate) whatever it is you mean. Otherwise, as I said, your
>remark is just, to put it politely, a cloud.
Nonsense. If I complain about the propriety of anothers remarks on a
commemorative thread I don't expect to be read as complaining about
Torkel's comments in the same terms. That's absurd.
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Pejorative terms are almost invariably self referential and usually
>> self reverential. Next to scientists idiots always make the best idiot
>> detectors.
>
>As I understand, you are saying that pejoratives "almost invariably"
>would be more accurately directed at the speaker.
Quite often correct. At least where invective is concerned.
> I don't know what
>basis you have for that.
Extensive first hand experience as a recipient of invective.
> It is not my observation that, in threads on
>logic and mathematics, pejoratives such as 'incoherent', 'word salad',
>'uniformed gibberish', etc. are "almost invariably" misdirected.
Which is exactly why I suggested you aren't an original thinker on
those subjects. Believe me if you were you would have had plenty of
experience indicating otherwise. Look, there are two kinds of original
thoughts: those which are right and those which are wrong. However
both are routinely dismissed with contempt because they don't make
sense in conventional terms. That doesn't make them wrong; it only
makes them unconventional. An unfortunate side effect is that most
novel and correct approaches will turn out to be poorly formulated in
any event just because they're novel and their authors inexperienced.
That's no ones fault; it just goes with the territory.
>> > But I think
>> >mathematics (though less so for philosophy of mathematics) is a subject
>> >- perhaps the quintessential one - in which we can more readily detect
>> >that the spiel is nonsensical, or error ridden, or stubborn and
>> >foolish, or utterly uniformed.
>
>> Well this is indeed curious.Certainly mathematics is an unusually well
>> structured edifice. That does not however mean that mathematicians are
>> comparably well structured. They rant and rave, whine and snivel, and
>> jump up and down like scalded monkeys just like everyone else when
>> their own ox is gored.
>
>I never said that mathematicians aren't often unreasonable (if that is
>what you think I had claimed). I just said that the subject matter of
>mathematics lends itself better to detecting when someone is
>bullshitting about the subject than do other subjects.
Here I agree except when the bullshit lies at the foundation of the
subject. Then all mathematics shows is that its conclusions are not
inconsistent with bullshit but not that bullshit is an insufficient
basis for its conclusions.
>> I take it you've beeen sequestered in a Tibetan
>> monastery the last couple of years or you would have noticed my own
>> revisionist contributions on such topics as universal truth, finite
>> tautological regressions, derivatives of cross products in angular
>> momentum, the absence of any single real number line in formal terms,
>> irrational and transcendental numbers, the analytical origin of
>> Planck's constant, Turing computability and intelligence, and the non
>> computability of numbers etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum
>
>I don't see your point. I don't know what my knowledge, or lack of it,
>of your mathematical postings has to do with any comments I made.
Your lack of knowledge regarding the propriety of invective as
illustrated in that context. I have plenty of first hand investigative
experience in the subject both giving and receiving.
>> all of which were
>> posted to sci.math and all of which received uniformly rave reviews,
>> the emphasis here being on "rave" as a code word for "reactionary"
>> among mathematkers of every stripe.
>
>I guess you're saying that your posts didn't get a fair hearing. So?
I'm not saying anything of the kind. My discussions got exactly the
response I expected, the "idiotic ramblings" of entrenched and self
righteous orthodoxy and self proclaimed establishment idiot detectors.
What more could anyone ask than the screaming of scalded academics?
>Even if they did not, I didn't claim that critical posters are always
>fair. I just commented - in response to your comment "It's difficult to
>be sure exactly who the idiotic rambler is" - that the difficulties are
>much less, or we can more readily detect, in mathematics than in other
>subjects
Perhaps. Unfortunately that also makes math very self righteous with
respect to unorthodox approaches which turn out to be demonstrably
correct.
>> Unfortunately Torkel had little to say regarding these topics and
>> confined his remarks to anonymous and ambiguous references to
>> fnoffling so I don't have much quarrel with anything he said since he
>> didn't really say it. But plenty of others have and I've had plenty to
>> say about what they chose to say and I've said plenty about it.
>
>If you got a bum deal, then I'm sorry that you did.
Well who gives a shit about bum deals. Everyone with anything new to
say gets a bum deal because those giving out the deals are assholes or
they wouldn't be wrong in what they say to begin with. That's exactly
why I've long since given up approaching such topics with decorum
appropriate to the subject matter. In other words I no longer confuse
the subject and its decorum with practitioners of the subject and deal
with practitioners as the smug self righteous assholes they almost
invariably turn out to be (which doesn't include Torkel to any first
hand knowledge of my own).
>> The
>> problem seems to be divorcing mathematics from the opinions of
>> mathematikers and what has been demonstrated from what hasn't.
>
>My point is that certain matters of mathematics itself (not including
>philosophy about mathematics) are not matters of opinion. Indeed, what
>has been demonstrated and what hasn't can with few exceptions, be
>evaluated objectively.
Math axioms can't or they wouldn't be axioms and axiomatic
assumptions. However I have no intention of trying to recapitulate
the sum total of some ten thousand posts and replies on the subject.
>> I notice you leave yourself an escape hatch above in distinguishing
>> math from the philosophy of math.
>
>I don't wish to make sweeping overgeneralizations, so of course I may
>mention exceptions, qualifications, or important distinctions. That
>seems quite reasonable to me and thus at least a bit cagey to call it
>"leaving myself an escape hatch".
I don't necessarily mean overtly. You left yourself an out. I don't.
>> But to me it's all science and those
>> who prefer to indulge their own flights of fancy in mathematics are no
>> better qualified to judge one from the other than idiotic ramblers.
>
>I don't know what you mean by "indulge flights of fancy".
Philosophy as opposed to science. And in "science" I include math as
just a better elaborated branch of science.
> You mentioned
>demonstration. Those who clearly state what qualifies as demonstration
>(or use methods restricted to those that can be, if necessary, clearly
>stated) and then demonstrate with strict respect to that statement
>deserve to be recognized for having done that. Those who do not clearly
>state, let alone do not state at all, what qualifies as demonstration
>and then make arguments that cannot be objectively evaluated due lack
>of context of such a statement (or reasonable presumption that such a
>statement could be made if required) deserve to be called out for,
>contrary to their own claims, not having provided mathematical
>demonstrations.
I get the distinct impression it's a shame you missed my preceeding
threads where all this was pretty thoroughly hashed out in no
uncertain terms. Too bad.
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>> And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
>
>What is fnoffling? Is it a Swedish word? Is it speaking doubletalk or
>nonsense or something like that?
No idea. Torkel was not very forthcoming on the subject at least with
me.
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>george wrote:
>> Chris Menzel wrote:
>> > On 20 Apr 2006 06:27:04 -0700, erl...@bredband.net <erl...@bredband.net>
>> > said:
>> > > Torkel Franzen, well known for his many Usenet posts, died of skeleton
>> > > cancer at Wednesday, April 19, at the age of 56.
>> >
>> > What sad news. Torkel's postings to Usenet were consistently pitch
>> > perfect in their combination of wit, good humor,
>>
>> "Consistently" my hairy light-brown ass.
>> Knowing how badly he was suffering certainly makes
>> it a lot more appropriate to commend his skill in inflicting
>> suffering, verbally, here,
>
>Whether he successfully inflicted verbal suffering is debatable, but
>it is certainly not commendable to do such. Perhaps Torkel at times
>considered that - even wished he did avoid such behavior.
I don't necessarily agree. There's the subject and decorum appropriate
to it as an edifice to consider. But there's also practitioners of the
subject and their occasionally appalling lack of decorum to consider.
Perhaps in the fullness of time all such things will merge.
>> but the contrast between the
>> acerbic two-liners of the end and the great explanations
>> of years past was also part of the tragedy.
>
>You are absolutely correct - except that is an understatement. The
>problem was his dark side vs his brilliant side. That IS the tragedy -
>and now those who commend such behavior (and make separting the two all
>the more difficult.)
>
>To say that his skill was in inflicting suffering is an insult to
>Torkel at this time of sorrow. Rather it was in his providing
>illumination.
>
>C-B
>
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>William of Ockham wrote:
>> Here is an example:
>>
>> XYZ: "AB finds also my language too difficult to understand. That is
>> no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem." Franzen:
>> "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments, after all, are
>> just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to "clear" any problem
>> connected with them?" XYZ: "I was rather too optimistic. I correct
>> myself and say that we can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING
>> TO COOPERATE."
>
>Good point. Shouldn't one cooperate? Is TF cooperating?
You know it's a real shame this issue is raised here rather than
separately. I let it go the first time because the discussion is not
appropriate to a commemorative thread. But the point is that
willingness to cooperate is a pure phantasm. It doesn't require
willingness to cooperate to establish a point correctly. What the
author really suggests here is that a point can only be demonstrated
if someone is willing to see it from his perspective and accept his
perspective on the problem, which is patently absurd since that is
exactly what one person isn't willing to do and the other isn't able
to contravene.
>> Franzen: "How do you mean? Do you expect people to
>> cooperate in the sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But
>> then, why should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
>
>One can call "idiotic rambing" constructive if they wish, but surely
>repeating oneself is pointless, isnt it?
>
>All of this discussion about stupid comments, and not a word about his
>technical points! His grasp of Godel's 2nd Theorem (and its
>successors) seemed unsurpassed - although he WAS weak on Godel's 1st!
>
>C-B
>
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Well I'll tell you exactly why. Because an edifice and artisans or
practitioners of the edifice are not anything like the same. We can
treat the former with the decorum it deserves and the latter with
exactly the lack of decorum they deserve if they don't know what
they're talking about but insist on talking about it nonetheless as
if they did know what they're talking about.
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Oh I dunno. I've always considered puncturing sacred cows the foremost
task of science. Unfortunately twentieth century science has seen
almost nothing but the enshrinement of nonmechanical sacred cows like
relativity and quantum mechanics. If Torkel played that kind of verbal
volleyball then more power to him.
~v~~
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Horseshit. The objective legacies of an individual can mostly be
summarized on one page. It's the personality that drives him that
matters as well. In my case it's the conquest of sacred cows, the more
sacred the better. And I hope any legacy I may leave will reflect that
in addition to whatever objective results I might produce.
>> Personally I see nothing wrong with discusssing the issue critically
>> in terms you lay out here. But not specifically in relation to what
>> Torkel may or may not have said and what he may or may not have
>> intended
>
>If not by word or intent, then in what context?
In a non commemorative context.
>> If you wish to pursue the topic further I suggest you show the
>> good manners to abstract the issue from Torkel himself.
>
>'eh? And who's not so keen on good manners around here?
Those who insist on profaning a commemorative thread.
>> At least then
>> we can get down to brass tacks of demagoguery. Torkel could be funny.
>> I'll give him that even if we didn't necessarily agree.
>
>No argument!
>
>C-B
>
>> ~v~~
>
>~~
>who's there?
Very good. ~. It turns out to be everywhere.
~v~~
Lester Zick
<cme...@remove-this.tamu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:24:17 GMT, Lester Zick
><lester...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>> That's the problem with idiotic rambling. It's difficult to be sure
>> exactly who the idiotic rambler is.
>
>Only for the idiot.
Yes, yes. I think we all understand that. But we don't all understand
exactly who the idiot is. Obviously the one calling another an idiot
thinks he knows who the idiot is but he might just as easily be the
idiot instead of the one he calls an idiot if all one is doing is name
calling and not demonstrating the contention of idiocy.
~v~~
Lester Zick
<wolf...@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>MoeBlee wrote:
>[...]
>> I don't know what you mean by "indulge flights of fancy". You mentioned
>> demonstration. Those who clearly state what qualifies as demonstration
>> (or use methods restricted to those that can be, if necessary, clearly
>> stated) and then demonstrate with strict respect to that statement
>> deserve to be recognized for having done that. Those who do not clearly
>> state, let alone do not state at all, what qualifies as demonstration
>> and then make arguments that cannot be objectively evaluated due lack
>> of context of such a statement (or reasonable presumption that such a
>> statement could be made if required) deserve to be called out for,
>> contrary to their own claims, not having provided mathematical
>> demonstrations.
>>
>> MoeBlee
>>
>
>Lester is a first class crank.
Undoubtedly the best ever.
>And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
Would that you could think as well as I fnoffle, Wolf.
~v~~
Lester Zick
<now...@nowhere.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>MoeBlee wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't see your point. I don't know what my knowledge, or lack of it,
>> of your mathematical postings has to do with any comments I made.
>
>You have not missed a thing. Just about everything Zick posts is
>balderdash.
"Just about" is right, Bob. Unfortunately that doesn't include the
thing he did miss the fact you acknowledged that there is no real
number line in formal terms which in itself was more than worth the
price of admission for everyone.
> Ask him what a finite tautological regression is sometime.
"Not not" or in symbolic terms "~ ~" which results in the law of
contradiction and its proof "~v~~".
Now you can get back to integrating points into lines, Bob.
~v~~
Charlie-Boo
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> Charlie-Boo wrote:
> > Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> >>I've tried a couple of times to help an idiotic rambler understand why
> >>his "mathematics" was idiotic rambling. Didn't work. Idiotic ramblers
> >>are peculiarly impervious to logic.
> >
> > Proof?
>
> Come on, Charlie, you know all about idiotic rambling and imperviousness
> to logic.
Well, I can see there is no logical content to your words. Does that
make them idiotic or rambling (in this context)? How about a single
example (if not a demonstration of universality)?
C-B
Lester Zick
<now...@nowhere.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>
>>
>> Lester is a first class crank.
>>
>> And a wonderfully creative fnoffler.
>
>A practicioner of fnard, as well.
But not a speaker in tongues like yourself, Bob.
~v~~
Wolf Kirchmeir
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> Au revoir, Torkel.
>>
>> Goedel's incompleteness makes a lot of sense, for theories axiomatized
>> finitely regular.
>>
>> In a grander universe beyond those strictures, incompleteness is less
>> of a given, and that is essentially a post-Goedelian viewpoint.
>
> Where is it not given?
>
> C-B
Anywhere outside axiomatised logic systems.
And even there, it's not given: it has to be proven.
Outside axiomatised logic, Goedel's Theorem doesn't apply.
Read Franzen's book.
Charlie-Boo
Where's the proof (that he's immune to and of the fact that he's immune
to it)?
> ~v~~
Wolf Kirchmeir
> William of Ockham wrote:
>>
>> XYZ: "AB finds also my language too difficult to understand. That is
>> no problem since we have here a forum to clear any problem." Franzen:
>> "This seems rather too optimistic a view. Your comments, after all, are
>> just idiotic rambling. Why should we be able to "clear" any problem
>> connected with them?" XYZ: "I was rather too optimistic. I correct
>> myself and say that we can clear any problem insofar as we are WILLING
>> TO COOPERATE."
>
>
>> cooperate in the sense of contributing their own idiotic rambling? But
>> then, why should their rambling be relevant to your rambling?"
>
> repeating oneself is pointless, isnt it?
>
> All of this discussion about stupid comments, and not a word about his
> technical points! His grasp of Godel's 2nd Theorem (and its
> successors) seemed unsurpassed - although he WAS weak on Godel's 1st!
>
> C-B
>
I don't think so. IMO, those who try to extend GT beyond axiomatised
systems are the ones that have a weak grasp of it. No grasp of it, actually.
Read his book, if you haven't done so already.
And I don't think TF's comments were stupid. He tried to help people
understand their mistakes. It was their willful obtuseness that
sometimes wore down his patience, and his exasperation is IMO quite
understandable. If anything, he was gentler than many - including some
of those he (and others) tried to teach.
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
The proof is Wolf doesn't agree with me and that I'm right and the
proof that I'm right is in my signature logo in that contradiction is
true of everything because alternatives to contradiction are self
contradictory and hence false. Next question?
~v~~
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>
>Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>> Charlie-Boo wrote:
>> > Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>> >>I've tried a couple of times to help an idiotic rambler understand why
>> >>his "mathematics" was idiotic rambling. Didn't work. Idiotic ramblers
>> >>are peculiarly impervious to logic.
>> >
>> > Proof?
>>
>> Come on, Charlie, you know all about idiotic rambling and imperviousness
>> to logic.
>
>Well, I can see there is no logical content to your words.
Heh. His words made perfect sense to me.
> Does that
>make them idiotic or rambling (in this context)? How about a single
>example (if not a demonstration of universality)?
>
>C-B
>
>> --
>> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
>>
>> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
>> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
************************
David C. Ullrich