responses on whitepaper
steve....@gmail.com
http://www.inform-fiction.org/I7Downloads/Documents/WhitePaper.pdf
...in installments.
This is going to be a fragmented reading, because my natural response
to this essay ("Natural Language, Semantic Analysis and Interactive
Fiction") is itself entirely fragmented. There are aspects I admire,
and statements which I think are totally lazy and idiotic; ideas which
are worth comment and exploration, and gestures which are, flatly,
intellectually dishonest.
I would like to begin with the end, which celebrates itself on some
vague suggestion of the author's disfigurement:
> At time of writing, [I7's] user base can be counted on the number of
> fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer than ten[.]
As far as intelligent content, this is like saying, "I'm innocent..
(because my lawyer has a bad case of MS)." Look, I honestly care about
you and I care if you're missing a couple fingers or a hand or
whatever, but I don't care about that in terms of the discussion. The
discussion is not about you or your members, missing, bent or
otherwise.
That said, the paper is absolutely required reading. So if you have not
already spent the couple hours, please go now, and read the thing cover
to cover.
PJ
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> > At time of writing, [I7's] user base can be counted on the number of
> > fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer than ten[.]
>
> As far as intelligent content, this is like saying, "I'm innocent..
> (because my lawyer has a bad case of MS)." Look, I honestly care about
> you and I care if you're missing a couple fingers or a hand or
> whatever, but I don't care about that in terms of the discussion. The
> discussion is not about you or your members, missing, bent or
> otherwise.
Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist? I.e., many
folks type exclusively with their two index fingers and the occasional
thumb on the space bar? I agree the paper is worth reading, but the
mode of discourse you begin with isn't really likely to get an informed
discussion on its merits going. A flame war, yes. Intelligent
analysis, no.
PJ
James Cunningham
> My contributions to this thread are meant to be a reading of...
>
> http://www.inform-fiction.org/I7Downloads/Documents/WhitePaper.pdf
>
> ...in installments.
>
> This is going to be a fragmented reading, because my natural response
> to this essay ("Natural Language, Semantic Analysis and Interactive
> Fiction") is itself entirely fragmented. There are aspects I admire,
> and statements which I think are totally lazy and idiotic; ideas which
> are worth comment and exploration, and gestures which are, flatly,
> intellectually dishonest.
>
> I would like to begin with the end, which celebrates itself on some
> vague suggestion of the author's disfigurement:
>
>> At time of writing, [I7's] user base can be counted on the number of
>> fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer than ten[.]
>
> As far as intelligent content, this is like saying, "I'm innocent..
> (because my lawyer has a bad case of MS)." Look, I honestly care about
> you and I care if you're missing a couple fingers or a hand or
> whatever, but I don't care about that in terms of the discussion. The
> discussion is not about you or your members, missing, bent or
> otherwise.
>
How in the world did you come to the suggestion that Nelson was blaming
insufficiencies in I7 on missing digits? He was making a joke about
the number of persons using I7 at the current time. Cigars are usually
cigars, and missing fingers - perish the thought! - are *usually just
that*.
And what in the hell does this have to do with the validity of Nelson's
points? Why is it that you feel the need to accuse him of things like
intellectual dishonesty when what you really have share simple
disagreement? Why do you resort to patronizing and patently untrue
statements like "Look, I honestly care about you [...]"?
Seriously. You're not tearing down idols; you're not winning friends
or influencing people; you're just uttering statements which make you
look like one of Jacek's Randroid puppets. Sheesh.
Best,
James
steve....@gmail.com
which I have voiced about DM4.
Graham writes, essentially echoing my views:
> In so far as [DM4] had models, they were Larry Wall's
> "Camel book" of Perl and Donald Knuth's TeXBook: there
> is something a little appealing about playing the eccentric
> inventor, but I perhaps overlooked that neither book --
> though brilliant, indespensable, and such -- is actually
> much good at its stated purpose.
Graham does not go on to explain how in particular his book diverts
from its stated purpose, but seems to acknowledge that it has something
to do with putting presentation before instruction, ego before ethic.
He repeats the obvious criticism of the exercises:
> The much-criticised "exercises" of the DM4 -- actually
> showcases for surprising possibilities, not pedagogical tests.
I think it's great that the new manual is less a riddle for the clever,
and more pedagogical.
A recognition of the facts is a fantastic step. I am very happy indeed
to read these acknowledgements.
I am somewhat perversely amused that Graham, in making these honest
acknowledgements, betrays some of his lockstep defenders. But then
again, lockstep defenders have a way of bouncing back.
Joshua Houk
>> At time of writing, [I7's] user base can be counted on the number of
>> fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer than ten[.]
>
> As far as intelligent content, this is like saying, "I'm innocent..
> (because my lawyer has a bad case of MS)." Look, I honestly care about
> you and I care if you're missing a couple fingers or a hand or
> whatever, but I don't care about that in terms of the discussion. The
> discussion is not about you or your members, missing, bent or
> otherwise.
I once had a cat that had tremendous problems in grasping the concept of a
litterbox. Unsurprisingly, his name was also Steve.
- JoshuaH
steve....@gmail.com
> Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a touch
typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
But why mention it in the first place? It's conspicuous when a writer
refers to himself in a paper, especially in an irrelevant "oh, by the
way, this is how the discussion relates to how I type." Egoistical and
irrelevant.
James Cunningham writes:
> How in the world did you come to the suggestion that Nelson was blaming
> insufficiencies in I7 on missing digits?
I did no such thing; quite the contrary. I think it was entirely
irrelevant of him to gratuitously refer to his digits, because they are
entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
John DeBerry
> PJ wrote:
>> Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
>
> These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a touch
> typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
I believe you intentionally misread those "intentionally" vague words!
No, honestly: Do you think that Graham intentionally made that phrase
vague? (And if so, I'm curious as to why you think he would.) Or
perhaps you just misread it and are blaming his words for your
misinterpretation?
> But why mention it in the first place? It's conspicuous when a writer
> refers to himself in a paper, especially in an irrelevant "oh, by the
> way, this is how the discussion relates to how I type." Egoistical and
> irrelevant.
It's the opposite of egoistical: he is saying that he is human. The
entire text is sprinkled with "I" and other personal pronouns. I
believe we can stomach one stray, self-deprecating phrase referencing
the author's typing methods without calling him an egoist.
- John
Adam Thornton
<steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I did no such thing; quite the contrary. I think it was entirely
>irrelevant of him to gratuitously refer to his digits, because they are
>entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
I dunno.
In most discussions with Steve Breslin, I eventually succumb to the
desire to express myself with just one digit. Well, sometimes one on
each hand.
Adam
Adam Thornton
...of which, I may say, there are fewer than three.
Adam
Adam Thornton
Joshua Houk <jlh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I once had a cat that had tremendous problems in grasping the concept of a
>litterbox. Unsurprisingly, his name was also Steve.
Did he have more than the usual number of digits? Polydactylism is
fairly common in cats.
Adam
steve....@gmail.com
> Do you think that Graham intentionally made that phrase
> vague? (And if so, I'm curious as to why you think he would.)
Well, he can't stand not talking about himself, but "hello, is this
mike on? ok, good. hey look at my hands everybody" simply isn't nuanced
enough for his taste.
> It's the opposite of egoistical: he is saying that he is human.
Yes, no matter what conclusion you come to, in the mystery of how many
fingers Graham types with, he is suggesting that he is human. It is
indeed a sign of being human, but not because some humans have missing
fingers, or some humans can't type very well. It is a sign of being
human insofar as humans tend to be preoccupied with themselves.
> The entire text is sprinkled with "I"[.]
Oh, I like ther personal touch, but it's got to be handled carefully,
lest it turn into the megalomaniacal touch, which is somewhat less
charming. I haven't gone back over the text with this in mind, but I
expect a close reading of his use of the first person would discover
some further egoistical intrusions, and not humility only.
Adam Thornton writes:
> In most discussions with Steve Breslin, I eventually succumb to the
> desire to express myself with just one digit. Well, sometimes one on
> each hand.
>
> ...of which, I may say, there are fewer than three.
You poor dear.
Poster
> John DeBerry wrote:
>> Do you think that Graham intentionally made that phrase
>> vague? (And if so, I'm curious as to why you think he would.)
>
> Well, he can't stand not talking about himself, but "hello, is this
> mike on? ok, good. hey look at my hands everybody" simply isn't nuanced
> enough for his taste.
Nuanced or non-nuanced, he said it and it stands. Good grief, man. Give
up focusing on such trivial matters! You've blown whatever credibility
you had and ensured that no-one will read your forthcoming disjointed :)
analysis.
And yet another Usenet arsonist marches into the great killfile. Sighs...
-- Poster
www.intaligo.com Building, INFORM, doom metal
Eric Eve
news:1147249977....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps this goes to show that what you get out of a text really
does depend on the preunderstanding you bring to it. You seem to be
reading Graham's white paper with a dedicated (to say the least)
hermeneutic of suspicion. That would be more understandable if you
were a fellow Oxford academic used to white papers (or green papers
which threaten to issue in white papers) full of stuff like "The SMT
has asked PRAC to report on the top-slicing of the JRAM in order to
refactor the Quantum in accordance with current best practice for
the Governance of the Collegiate University."* (probably = "The
central administration wants to pinch more money from the
Colleges").
Hm. I did wonder why Graham gave the name "White Paper" to his pdf
file.
-- Eric
*This is a caricature - but not much of a caricature.
Graham Nelson
I did indeed write "At time of writing, [I7's] user base can be counted
on the number of fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer than
ten". On the whole I feel one is entitled to a little more personalia
in the concluding paragraph than in the body of a long paper. The sense
intended was that I had just spent many pages expounding grand theories
about what people would want, but that these theories had yet to be
tested by actual experience. (That's now happening, of course, but
we'll have to wait for the novelty to wear off.)
I wonder if "lazy", "idiotic", "intellectually dishonest", etc., is
quite the most constructive language to be using?
Graham Nelson
("Natural Language, Semantic Analysis and Interactive Fiction") was too
long for a filename.
I did wonder if it was more like the Futurist Manifesto, or some such.
Earlier forms of the document served as a sort of doctrinal programme
for where we were going, when the project was only half-done, so it was
a white paper in the sense of being a statement of aims and ideology.
Neil Cerutti
>> At time of writing, [I7's] user base can be counted on the
>> number of fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer than
>> ten[.]
>
> As far as intelligent content, this is like saying, "I'm
> innocent.. (because my lawyer has a bad case of MS)." Look, I
> honestly care about you and I care if you're missing a couple
> fingers or a hand or whatever, but I don't care about that in
> terms of the discussion. The discussion is not about you or
> your members, missing, bent or otherwise.
Dude, he's just saying he's not an asdf-jklk touch-typist. ;-)
--
Neil Cerutti
Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important
part of your life. --Brook Shields
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Neil Cerutti
>> Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
>
> These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a
> touch typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
>
> But why mention it in the first place? It's conspicuous when a
> writer refers to himself in a paper, especially in an
> irrelevant "oh, by the way, this is how the discussion relates
> to how I type." Egoistical and irrelevant.
As nicely as I can put it: I hope this first salvo is not
indicative of the quality of your forthcoming criticisms and
critiques of this white paper.
--
Neil Cerutti
Daryl McCullough
>
>Oh dear.
>
>I did indeed write "At time of writing, [I7's] user base can be counted
>on the number of fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer than
>ten".
Well, since you brought it up, perhaps you can clarify something
for us: Exactly how many fingers do you have on each hand, and
howmany of these do you use for typing?
No need to answer if the subject is too personal.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Quintin Stone
> As far as intelligent content, this is like saying, "I'm innocent..
> (because my lawyer has a bad case of MS)." Look, I honestly care about
> you and I care if you're missing a couple fingers or a hand or whatever,
> but I don't care about that in terms of the discussion. The discussion
> is not about you or your members, missing, bent or otherwise.
Congrats. You've managed to derail your own thread before it's even
begun thanks to your typical pedantic wankery. You can't just discuss his
work; first you have to attack him as a person. Nice.
We all get that you are committed to IF. But you may want to take a step
back, maybe take a break from the medium, and reflect upon the fact that
you can still seriously discuss the merits of things without being an
utter asshole about it.
==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
st...@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
solar penguin
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> But why mention it in the first place? It's conspicuous when a writer
> refers to himself in a paper, especially in an irrelevant "oh, by the
> way, this is how the discussion relates to how I type." Egoistical and
> irrelevant.
It would be egotistical if he was boasting about being a great touch
typist. An egotist wouldn't draw attention to his flaws and weaknesses
like that.
--
___ _ ___ _
/ __| ___ | | __ _ _ _ | _ \ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ (_) _ _
\__ \/ _ \| |/ _` || '_| | _// -_)| ' \ / _` || || || || ' \
|___/\___/|_|\__,_||_| |_| \___||_||_|\__, | \_,_||_||_||_|
|___/
http://www.freewebs.com/solar_penguin/
** In it, it recounts the adventures of the star.
** Teachers and prophets are worthy of their origins being retold by the
warriors. She is the captain of this ship.
Andrew Plotkin
> PJ wrote:
> > Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
>
> These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a touch
> typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
>
> But why mention it in the first place?
Interestingly, I also type with fewer than ten fingers. I suspect this
is why I7's rule model is so comfortable for me.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
It used to be that "conservatives" were in favor of smaller government,
fiscal responsibility, and tighter constraints on the Man's ability to
monitor you, arrest you, and control your life.
Neil Cerutti
> Here, steve....@gmail.com wrote:
>> PJ wrote:
>> > Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
>>
>> These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a touch
>> typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
>>
>> But why mention it in the first place?
>
> Interestingly, I also type with fewer than ten fingers. I suspect this
> is why I7's rule model is so comfortable for me.
Dang-it! I knew there was a non-obvious drawback to Inform 7. I
guess I could tape my pinkies to my ring-fingers. Or... well...
anybody got a hatchet?
--
Neil Cerutti
The Minutemen are not tall in terms of height. --Dan Bonner
Kevin Forchione
news:slrne648e6.1...@FIAD06.norwich.edu...
> On 2006-05-10, Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>> Here, steve....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> PJ wrote:
>>> > Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
>>>
>>> These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a touch
>>> typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
>>>
>>> But why mention it in the first place?
>>
>> Interestingly, I also type with fewer than ten fingers. I suspect this
>> is why I7's rule model is so comfortable for me.
>
> Dang-it! I knew there was a non-obvious drawback to Inform 7. I
> guess I could tape my pinkies to my ring-fingers. Or... well...
> anybody got a hatchet?
You have pinkies? I thought all inform programmers had the normal 10
fingers, but no pinkies. ;)
--Kevin
Graham Nelson
Mulky
Personally I type by slapping my cock against the keyboard while
jamming a thumb up my arse. Not very productive I admit, but it's a
hell of a lot more fun than touch-typing.
James Cunningham
<gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> said:
It's okay, Graham! He *cares about you*.
(How can you be a mathematician with fewer than ten digits, anyway?
What happens if you have to count higher than nine?)
Best,
James
Jon Rosebaugh
> (How can you be a mathematician with fewer than ten digits, anyway?
> What happens if you have to count higher than nine?)
Presumably he has feet.
Adam Thornton
James Cunningham <jameshcu...@google.com> wrote:
>(How can you be a mathematician with fewer than ten digits, anyway?
>What happens if you have to count higher than nine?)
He changes bases.
DUH.
Adam
steve....@gmail.com
> On the whole I feel one is entitled to a little more personalia
> in the concluding paragraph than in the body of a long paper.
The natural dignity of Latin is an inadequate disguise. There remains a
difference between good-personalia, which is always somehow at least
tangentially related to the text, and bad-personalia, mere gratuitous
self-indulgence. Besides, there's more than enough
personalia-in-closing already, without introducing the mystery of your
fingers. But I think you already recognize that you tipped your hand
again, pretend what you will.
Stephen Granade
First the obsession with the number of fingers Graham has; now he has
"tipped [his] hand". Were you to star in an Adam Thornton game, it's
clear what body parts his code would have to focus on.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade
stephen...@granades.com
Daryl McCullough
Steve, I hope you recognize how utterly *bizarre* your comments are.
Graham makes an off-hand (no pun intended) comment about the fact
that there aren't very many users of Inform 7, and you took this
to be *egoism*. That is just, plain weird. I'm willing to bet that
you are the only person who read it that way.
You want Graham to recognize that he is being gratuitiously
self-indulgent? Okay, can you recognize that you are being
gratuitously unpleasant? That you are making arguments out
of *nothing*, serving no purpose *whatsoever*?
Daryl McCullough
>You want Graham to recognize that he is being gratuitiously
>self-indulgent? Okay, can you recognize that you are being
>gratuitously unpleasant? That you are making arguments out
>of *nothing*, serving no purpose *whatsoever*?
I just want to clarify that I'm specifically talking about
Steve's making an issue of Graham's statement
"At time of writing, its user base can be counted on the
number of fingers I type with, which I may say is fewer
than ten:"
not the rest of Steve's comments about Inform 7.
Kevin Forchione
news:m3ejz07...@sargent.dyndns.org...
There's probably a metaphorical wrist somewhere further down in this
discussion. Alas, it appears there is to be no discussion at all on the
conceptual framework of I7!
--Kevin
James Cunningham
I fear that there is a certain amount of reluctance to drink from a
poisoned well.
Best,
James
Johnny Awesome
You just use your thumb? I use my fingers (of which there are fewer
than ten, but I'm not bragging or anything.)
This post took a while to type out. Making capitals and punctuation
sucks.
Timothy Partridge
lead...@email.com (Neil Cerutti) wrote:
> On 2006-05-10, Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> > Here, steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> PJ wrote:
> >> > Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
> >>
> >> These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a touch
> >> typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
> >>
> >> But why mention it in the first place?
> >
> > Interestingly, I also type with fewer than ten fingers. I suspect this
> > is why I7's rule model is so comfortable for me.
>
> Dang-it! I knew there was a non-obvious drawback to Inform 7. I
> guess I could tape my pinkies to my ring-fingers. Or... well...
> anybody got a hatchet?
Surely touch typists only use nine digits anyway, unless they have funny alt
or alt gr things to do on a computer keyboard? You only need one thumb to
press the space bar. Perhaps one or two finger using typists don't realise
this. Going back to the main topic I think Graham should feel free to
indulge in such comments, unless his intended audience all frown on
frivolity getting in the way of serious academics.
Tim
--
Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer
steve....@gmail.com
beginning with some history.
Gottlob Frege was a German mathematician turned logician, and founder
of predicate logic and analytical philosophy. Like many
philosophically-minded mathematicians, he deeply misunderstood
mathematics, or perhaps fairer to say, he had a deep and almost
religious belief in its truth. Though an ambitious innovator, was in
the end a very sad man, for his children all died before reaching
adulthood, and his major work ultimately failed, flawed beyond
recuperation.
This failure is the major cause of the modern mathematician's general
avoidance of philosophy (though there are of course some exceptions).
Most mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is a exercise in
inventing axioms and finding the consequences; they enjoy the aesthetic
of abstract structure, and rightly repudiate any claim to the truth of
their varied systems.
The proper domain of truth has always been philosophy, and so
philosophy had a much harder time coping with the rise and fall of one
student of Frege, Bertrand Russell. Russell is the one who popularized
Frege's philosophical thought -- though he was directly responsible for
the collapse of Frege's system -- and his system (and the general drift
of his philosophical thought) was likewise overturned in the famous
proof by another of Frege's students, Gödel. The third famous student
of Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein (teacher of our favorite Alan Turing),
finally concluded that philosophy wasn't going to accomplish anything
whatever in the realm of truth, at least as an analytical philosopher
understands both philosophy and truth, and should therefore resign
itself to silence.
Analytical philosophy is still practiced in the US and England (though
far less so on the continent of Europe), despite the fact that its
intellectual integrity has been dealt several fatal blows since
Gödel's, because the comfort of truth, or better, rightness, is to
some a more valuable commodity than intellectual integrity. (One might
well conclude that analytical philosophy, with its righteousness and
blindness, is the natural expression of Empiri(c)al nations. I mean
this less than half-jokingly.)
The kind of logic that Graham is dealing with has, for the most part,
learned its lesson, and does not concern itself with truth, but, under
the influence and finally the umbrella of the ancient art of philology,
and the modern form, linguistics, concerns itself with what it today
specially terms "information" (a contentious term which I'll get back
to in a short moment). It is still analytical (in the sense that it
sets for itself knots to untie), and it is sometimes still positively
analytical (and intellectually suspect), but at bottom it is far more
interested in its proper work. It is often earnest and modest about its
possibility and shortcomings, and can be quite useful for some
practical computing applications involving language and syntax,
specifically the diagramming of sentences and groups of sentences.
(Yes, exactly like the diagrams you might have done, or been spared of,
in junior high school (or later, depending).)
Nevertheless, when you wander in this section of the library, you
should probably bring along what Eric Eve might call a hermeneutics of
suspicion.
"Information," as you might therefore suspect, is an extremely slippery
word. The first thing to note is that it has been chosen very carefully
to distinguish itself from "meaning." We are not talking about the
"meaning" of a sentence or paragraph, but about its "information."
Apply to that a hermeneutics of suspicion, for a moment, and I expect
you will be rewarded.
As you might guess, the "information" in a sentence comprises whatever
meaningful content that can be extracted and encompassed by the logical
system under favor. The obvious tautology does not deter some students,
and even some professionals, from colluding "information" (which is the
limited material that our logical system allows us to extrapolate from
the object) and meaning (which is far more complicated and robust, and
technically indefinable even within the relatively small subset of
purely declarative NL).
==
Application
Graham has figured the logical system itself as the addressee,
effectively collapsing the distinction between meaning and information.
This is at once naturally a brilliant, if obvious, success (though not
the first of its kind, as he notes), and a dual failure. It fails
insofar as it betrays meaning, effectively reducing it to programming,
and betrays information, effectively depriving it of its object and
aim, its unspoken purpose: the approximation of meaning.
Graham's essay, and perhaps his system, asks that you look naively on
uncertain terms, and calls its language natural. But it is built on a
model of language, a structural description, which is itself an
extrapolation from real language, and paltry at best (as its developers
freely admit).
==
It is an awful habit of mine (and one I continually apologize for),
that when I deal with texts written by Graham (or any similar
creature), I critique not only the substance but the superficial
qualities of the writing, the rhetoric and so. I hold nevertheless that
these two are deeply intertwined, and that the one informs and
determines the other. Forms of discourse (gangster rap; intellectual
wank), cliches ("bitches and ho's"; "if I may say so myself"), and
philosophies (I am superior; I am superior), are all indeed
intertwined, and the illumination of one is relevant to the others.
I appreciate that my comments appear irrelevant from time to time. And
I freely admit that I am myself a man no less foolish than any. I
appreciate the desires of those who only want to discuss the
essentials, but I think these marginalia cannot be excised without some
loss.
Adam Thornton
Stephen Granade <stephen...@granades.com> wrote:
>First the obsession with the number of fingers Graham has; now he has
>"tipped [his] hand". Were you to star in an Adam Thornton game, it's
>clear what body parts his code would have to focus on.
I feel as if I have achieved a somewhat dubious form of notoriety.
Adam
Giles
steve....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I appreciate that my comments appear irrelevant from time to time. And
> I freely admit that I am myself a man no less foolish than any. I
> appreciate the desires of those who only want to discuss the
> essentials, but I think these marginalia cannot be excised without some
> loss.
The natural dignity of Latin is an inadequate disguise. There remains a
difference between good-marginalia, which is always somehow at least
tangentially related to the text, and bad-marginalia, mere gratuitous
self-indulgence. Besides, there's more than enough
marginalia-in-closing already, without introducing the mystery of your
foolishness. But I think you already recognize that you tipped your
hand
again, pretend what you will.
-Giles
Adam Thornton
<steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
[....]
>The proper domain of truth has always been philosophy, and so
>philosophy had a much harder time coping with the rise and fall of one
>student of Frege, Bertrand Russell. Russell is the one who popularized
>Frege's philosophical thought -- though he was directly responsible for
>the collapse of Frege's system -- and his system (and the general drift
>of his philosophical thought) was likewise overturned in the famous
>proof by another of Frege's students, Gödel. The third famous student
>of Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein (teacher of our favorite Alan Turing),
>finally concluded that philosophy wasn't going to accomplish anything
>whatever in the realm of truth, at least as an analytical philosopher
>understands both philosophy and truth, and should therefore resign
>itself to silence.
[....]
>It is an awful habit of mine (and one I continually apologize for),
>that when I deal with texts written by Graham (or any similar
>creature), I critique not only the substance but the superficial
>qualities of the writing, the rhetoric and so. I hold nevertheless that
>these two are deeply intertwined, and that the one informs and
>determines the other. Forms of discourse (gangster rap; intellectual
>wank), cliches ("bitches and ho's"; "if I may say so myself"), and
>philosophies (I am superior; I am superior), are all indeed
>intertwined, and the illumination of one is relevant to the others.
....really, most erudite and impressive. I'm still not sure I
understood what you were saying--I'll have to go read it again, but
rhetorically delicious.
Which makes me wonder. REALLY makes me wonder.
Breslin, *are* you Jacek?
Adam
Philipp Gerhardy
haven't read yet, as a logician I feel compelled to offer dissenting
views on "the history of logic". I cannot be self-contained, but vouch
for the well-foundedness of my statements.
steve....@gmail.com writes:
> Gottlob Frege was a German mathematician turned logician, and founder
> of predicate logic and analytical philosophy. Like many
> philosophically-minded mathematicians, he deeply misunderstood
> mathematics, or perhaps fairer to say, he had a deep and almost
> religious belief in its truth. Though an ambitious innovator, was in
> the end a very sad man, for his children all died before reaching
> adulthood, and his major work ultimately failed, flawed beyond
> recuperation.
>
Many significant philosophically minded mathematicians had an
excellent understanding of mathematics, e.g. Brouwer, Hilbert, Goedel
and (Fields Medalist) Paul Cohen. I don't see how Frege's personal
life is relevent to his "failure" as a logician, and though there were
flaws in his work, they were certainly not beyond recuperation as the
rich theories of first and second order predicate logic in use today
should give ample evidence of.
>
> This failure is the major cause of the modern mathematician's general
> avoidance of philosophy (though there are of course some exceptions).
> Most mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is a exercise in
> inventing axioms and finding the consequences; they enjoy the aesthetic
> of abstract structure, and rightly repudiate any claim to the truth of
> their varied systems.
>
IMO, the main reason for modern mathematics avoidance of philosophy is
that the philosophical topics that came up and were forced upon the
mathematical community during the so-called "foundational crisis of
mathematics" are topics that most modern mathematicians consider
irrelevant. Very generally, the question discussed was "Does one need
to explicitly construct an object to claim it exists or is it
sufficient to prove the impossibility of non-existence". This slightly
lamentable situation will be amended as soon as logicians prove the
relevance of logical and philosophical consideration. This is actually
very promising work in progress.
Very few mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is about
inventing axioms and deducing consequences. Axiomatic mathematics was
very much in vogue during the 50s and 60s influenced by the work of
the (fictional) French mathematician Bourbaki. Nevertheless, the study
of formal systems in which ordinary mathematics can be carried out is
in some cases very fruitful, but by no means the backbone of ordinary
mathamtical activity.
>
> The proper domain of truth has always been philosophy, and so
> philosophy had a much harder time coping with the rise and fall of one
> student of Frege, Bertrand Russell. Russell is the one who popularized
> Frege's philosophical thought -- though he was directly responsible for
> the collapse of Frege's system -- and his system (and the general drift
> of his philosophical thought) was likewise overturned in the famous
> proof by another of Frege's students, Gödel. The third famous student
> of Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein (teacher of our favorite Alan Turing),
> finally concluded that philosophy wasn't going to accomplish anything
> whatever in the realm of truth, at least as an analytical philosopher
> understands both philosophy and truth, and should therefore resign
> itself to silence.
>
Goedel may have read the works of Frege, but he was more influenced by
his teachers Hahn and Menger (whose rather philosophical colloquium
Goedel attended regularly), as well as by the seminal work on logic by
first Russell and Whitehead, then Hilbert and Bernays. Again, finding
flaws (that can be fixed) in a system is not equivalent to its
downfall.
>
> Analytical philosophy is still practiced in the US and England (though
> far less so on the continent of Europe), despite the fact that its
> intellectual integrity has been dealt several fatal blows since
> Gödel's, because the comfort of truth, or better, rightness, is to
> some a more valuable commodity than intellectual integrity. (One might
> well conclude that analytical philosophy, with its righteousness and
> blindness, is the natural expression of Empiri(c)al nations. I mean
> this less than half-jokingly.)
>
I am not sure what is meant by this. But if "blows" refers to e.g.
Goedel's incompleteness theorems, then I again disagree. They were not
fatal, quite to the contrary.
>
> The kind of logic that Graham is dealing with has, for the most part,
> learned its lesson, and does not concern itself with truth, but, under
> the influence and finally the umbrella of the ancient art of philology,
> and the modern form, linguistics, concerns itself with what it today
> specially terms "information" (a contentious term which I'll get back
> to in a short moment). It is still analytical (in the sense that it
> sets for itself knots to untie), and it is sometimes still positively
> analytical (and intellectually suspect), but at bottom it is far more
> interested in its proper work. It is often earnest and modest about its
> possibility and shortcomings, and can be quite useful for some
> practical computing applications involving language and syntax,
> specifically the diagramming of sentences and groups of sentences.
> (Yes, exactly like the diagrams you might have done, or been spared of,
> in junior high school (or later, depending).)
First order predicate logic and higher order extensions thereof, as
they are applied in mathematics and computer science today, very much
concern themselves with truth. There are many highly non-trivial
applications, such as automatic or interactive software and security
protocol verification, which routinely finds flaws that probably never
would have been spotted by the human eye alone. Moreover, automatic
and interactive theorem proving. One of the oldest mathematical
conjectures, the Kepler conjecture (on optimal Sphere packing) was
recently solved (by Thomas Hales), crucially using computer generated
proofs of certain graph-theoretical conjectures expressible in first
and second order logic.
In any way, predicate logic is not (1) a product of misunderstood
mathematics, (2) failed or flawed and (3) trivial or mundane. It's
possibilities far exceed its shortcomings.
At least I hope so, or in due time I will be unemployed ;)
Kind regards,
Philipp
steve....@gmail.com
> [A]s a logician I feel compelled to offer dissenting
> views on "the history of logic".
I hope we can be happy to agree that your remarks are all very well
correct, and that my little "history of logic" is, well, inevitably
inadequate.
I think that you make one main point of correction in various forms,
namely that the failures of modern logic have not been entirely fatal.
This is of course manifestly true.
> [T]hough there were flaws in [Frege's] work, they were certainly
> not beyond recuperation as the
> rich theories of first and second order predicate logic in use today
> should give ample evidence of.
No, his whole work wasn't shot to pieces by Russell's paradox of the
fifth rule, but his principle objective, the logicization of
mathematics, was failed in principle. A logician may proceed to the
battlefield with chinks in his armor, but he will not advertise himself
an angel.
And so again logic returns to its primitive meaning, while still
remaining as useful and indeed as necessary as ever.
> IMO, the main reason for modern mathematics avoidance of philosophy is
> that the philosophical topics that came up and were forced upon the
> mathematical community during the so-called "foundational crisis of
> mathematics" are topics that most modern mathematicians consider
> irrelevant.
That's totally reasonable. IMO, it's much the same as a physicist
(e.g., Feynman) saying, "look, I don't do ontology. call it reality if
you want, or whatever."
> Very few mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is about
> inventing axioms and deducing consequences. Axiomatic mathematics was
> very much in vogue during the 50s and 60s influenced by the work of
> the (fictional) French mathematician Bourbaki. Nevertheless, the study
> of formal systems in which ordinary mathematics can be carried out is
> in some cases very fruitful, but by no means the backbone of ordinary
> mathamtical activity.
Respectfully, a logician will have a different exposure to, and
different interest in, the philosophy of mathematics, than a
theoretical physicist, or a practicing mathematician.
Axiomatic mathematics has not fallen out of vogue, only a certain
philosophical approach to it. It IS mathematics. Axiomatic mathematics
is redundant. -- But this gets into the philosophicization of
mathematics.
> Goedel may have read the works of Frege [...]
Am I supposed to laugh or cry here?
> [...] but he was more influenced by
> his teachers Hahn and Menger (whose rather philosophical colloquium
> Goedel attended regularly), as well as by the seminal work on logic by
> first Russell and Whitehead, then Hilbert and Bernays. Again, finding
> flaws (that can be fixed) in a system is not equivalent to its
> downfall.
Again, that fixing involves a repudiation of absolution, here called
completeness.
> > Analytical philosophy is still practiced in the US and England (though
> > far less so on the continent of Europe), despite the fact that its
> > intellectual integrity has been dealt several fatal blows since
> > Gödel's[.]
> [...]
> I am not sure what is meant by this. But if "blows" refers to e.g.
> Goedel's incompleteness theorems, then I again disagree.
Yes, that was the major first coming from within. Quine dealt a couple
others from within. He wasn't alone (not that that matters anyway).
>From without, there have been innumerable crushing blows, and far
backwards, starting with the sophists really. Probably the most
crushing is Hamman's critique of Enlightenment-style certainty, which
is easily mappable to analytical philosophy. Since the historical dawn
of analytical philosphy, the most thematic (at least in my mind) has
been Derrida's "Limited, Inc." but there have been innumerable others.
I don't care to make an irrelevant war, but you might pretend that you
have some idea what I might be talking about.
> First order predicate logic and higher order extensions thereof, as
> they are applied in mathematics and computer science today, very much
> concern themselves with truth.
Not truth, properly speaking, but non-contradiction. But the
interesting bit to the computer guys, and I hope that's who we're
ultimately addressing, is the syntactical and semantic analysis. Thus
Graham cites such as Hans Kamp.
> In any way, predicate logic is not (1) a product of misunderstood
> mathematics, (2) failed or flawed and (3) trivial or mundane. It's
> possibilities far exceed its shortcomings.
I agree with this. Really I agree with everything you said. Thanks very
much.
> Kind regards,
Likewise.
jaunty alan
i can't credit a criticism of I7 as not being in some sense
transparently honest about being algorithmic, and then looking at the
associated white paper and thinking it falls short because it's seen as
part of the tradition of analytic philosophy.
you read like someone who should actually read less and try to
understand more.
jaunty alan
for. but really, your long post made zero overall sense, despite
showing some sort of knowledge of connected issues, which is hard to
square.
Graham Nelson
> Gottlob Frege was a German mathematician turned logician, and founder
> of predicate logic and analytical philosophy. Like many
> philosophically-minded mathematicians, he deeply misunderstood
> mathematics, or perhaps fairer to say, he had a deep and almost
> religious belief in its truth.
I do not think it fair to say that Frege misunderstood mathematics, let
alone deeply so. His central philosophical ideas, to do with what we
might call scripts for logic, anticipated and to some extent guided
much of what had become mainstream mathematics by the 1930s. His
influence is enormous.
> ...his major work ultimately failed, flawed beyond
> recuperation.
His major work nevertheless advanced the state of both mathematics and,
to a lesser extent, philosophy. I would not call it a failure. I doubt
if ZF set theory would have developed as it did without the examples of
Frege and Russell. We did not in the end go with Russell's theory of
types, either, but that does not mean that Russell was a failure.
> Most mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is a exercise in
> inventing axioms and finding the consequences; they enjoy the aesthetic
> of abstract structure, and rightly repudiate any claim to the truth of
> their varied systems.
Few mathematicians of my own acquaintance would take this view - I
can't think of any, offhand - and I note that none of my students begin
their studies holding this as what we might call a naive belief,
either. Most of my colleagues are, I think, Platonists: almost none
"repudiate any claim to truth". Sociological surveys of mathematicians
have been done to poll the metaphysical views at large in the field,
and I believe they bear me out.
For most mathematicians, axiom schemes are chosen or rejected for their
ability to capture what is perceived as an important structure already
in place: usually they are derived from a sort of specification of
minimum requirements. For instance, the group axioms derive from
solving ax=b, the most elementary linear equation, and also from
expressing symmetries in spatial geometry. Very few mathematicians
believe that the group axioms - or the vector space axioms, or the ring
axioms, or the Peano axioms, or even the ZF axioms - are "invented".
> The third famous student
> of Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein (teacher of our favorite Alan Turing),
> finally concluded that philosophy wasn't going to accomplish anything
> whatever in the realm of truth, at least as an analytical philosopher
> understands both philosophy and truth, and should therefore resign
> itself to silence.
He did, famously, say that when we cannot meaningfully speak we should
be silent. I don't think he would have liked Usenet.
But that was in a different context. Wittgenstein's philosophy of
mathematics did not deny notions of truth, though it is true that his
views changed throughout his lifetime. The Tractatus, at any rate,
remains remarkably close to a modern mathematical course on predicate
logic.
> The kind of logic that Graham is dealing with has, for the most part,
> learned its lesson, and does not concern itself with truth
In what sense has predicate calculus "learned its lesson"? What lesson,
exactly?
> The obvious tautology does not deter some students,
> and even some professionals, from colluding "information" (which is the
> limited material that our logical system allows us to extrapolate from
> the object) and meaning (which is far more complicated and robust, and
> technically indefinable even within the relatively small subset of
> purely declarative NL).
Plainly semantic and syntactic entailment are different, but I do not
think you will find anyone who disagrees with that.
> Graham's essay, and perhaps his system, asks that you look naively on
> uncertain terms, and calls its language natural. But it is built on a
> model of language, a structural description, which is itself an
> extrapolation from real language, and paltry at best (as its developers
> freely admit).
As I've said in the other thread, I do not accept that the adoption of
a simplified grammar necessarily obviates naturality.
steve....@gmail.com
> I do not think it fair to say that Frege misunderstood mathematics, let
> alone deeply so. His central philosophical ideas, to do with what we
> might call scripts for logic, anticipated and to some extent guided
> much of what had become mainstream mathematics by the 1930s. His
> influence is enormous.
My initial suspicion was that you were copying this from wikipedia.
(Hooray, I was mistaken.) But it remains the case that this is
trivially true and basically irrelevant to the point that his
philosophy was badly mistaken.
> For most mathematicians, axiom schemes are chosen or rejected for their
> ability to capture what is perceived as an important structure already
> in place: usually they are derived from a sort of specification of
> minimum requirements.
Usually they are invented, based on a specification of minimum
requirements, itself invented, based on some object. Since Frege's
fall, mathematicians tend not to confuse the invented axiom base with
the object specified, the model with the modeled. Some logicians still
do.
> For instance, the group axioms derive from
> solving ax=b, the most elementary linear equation, and also from
> expressing symmetries in spatial geometry. Very few mathematicians
> believe that the group axioms - or the vector space axioms, or the ring
> axioms, or the Peano axioms, or even the ZF axioms - are "invented".
You're being really inconsistent. In your paper you admit that you
don't know what you're talking about, and that you're a novice, (while
still accusing the true professionals of a deep failure of
understanding), and then you come here, and try to impress -- who I'm
not sure, me? or people who simply don't have the training to follow
this discussion? -- with this bluster.
> > The kind of logic that Graham is dealing with has, for the most part,
> > learned its lesson, and does not concern itself with truth
>
> In what sense has predicate calculus "learned its lesson"? What lesson,
> exactly?
That it should resist the temptation to claim truth. (I think it's neat
the way you play smart and play dumb at the same time.)
> As I've said in the other thread, I do not accept that the adoption of
> a simplified grammar necessarily obviates naturality.
I have not made that argument. (Or, at least, I don't think so, but
perhaps it's just that I can make little sense of what you're trying to
say.)
Graham Nelson
> My initial suspicion was that you were copying this from wikipedia.
> (Hooray, I was mistaken.)
I've only read Frege in translation, but I have read him. He rewards
the effort.
> you come here, and try to impress -- who I'm
> not sure, me? or people who simply don't have the training to follow
> this discussion? -- with this bluster.
I believe I can claim some experience of how mathematicians tend to
think.
> > As I've said in the other thread, I do not accept that the adoption of
> > a simplified grammar necessarily obviates naturality.
>
> I have not made that argument.
What, then, is your argument?
Duncan Harvey
> [...] you come here, and try to impress [...] with this bluster.
>
> [...] I can make little sense of what you're trying to say.
Was your 'history lesson' post an attempt to parody Graham Nelson's
style, then?
--
Duncan Harvey
steve....@gmail.com
> Was your 'history lesson' post an attempt to parody Graham Nelson's
> style, then?
It wasn't ment as a lesson, and if it came across as lecturing or so,
then it's an unintentional parody, and I apologize to my readers.
Adam Thornton
Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[Wittgenstein] did, famously, say that when we cannot meaningfully
>speak we should be silent. I don't think he would have liked Usenet.
A hit! A very palpable hit!
Adam
John DeBerry
I think Duncan was delicately hinting at this: The faults that you
perceive within[1] Graham are mirrored several times over within
yourself.
Is Pontificating Graham of the Nine Fingers actually your Jungian shadow? ;)
- John
[1] or in my own interpretation, "project upon"
John W. Kennedy
> Is Pontificating Graham of the Nine Fingers actually your Jungian
> shadow? ;)
Bête noir, King Charles's head, call it what you will -- it's obvious
that some grade-school English teacher confiscated his chewing gum years
ago and he's never gotten over it. Or perhaps he's confused "Nelson"
with "Norton". One way or the other, Mr. Breslin is a boor and a bore,
and has been on my killfile list for some time.
Meanwhile, some of us are actually working with I7 and finding it
immensely powerful (though not, alas, bug-free at present). I only hope
Glulx support is not too far off, as my BIG project (so old my wife and
I once actually proposed it to Infocom) will probably overflow Z8's
capacity.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Civilised centuries away, the Roman moved.
Taliessin saw the flash of his style
dash at the wax; he saw the hexameter spring
and the king's sword swing; he saw, in the long field,
the point where the pirate chaos might suddenly yield,
the place for the law of grace to strike."
-- Charles Williams. "Mount Badon"
Graham Nelson
> Or perhaps he's confused "Nelson"
> with "Norton".
Graham Norton, hugely camp presenter of BBC1's latest
dance-talent-show, is the bane of my life. If I give my name on the
phone to any receptionist in Britain, I get a surprised giggle in
return. "Did you say Graham Norton?" Etcetera.
I can only hope that he in turn is mobbed by angry interactive fiction
critics.
John W. Kennedy
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> Or perhaps he's confused "Nelson"
>> with "Norton".
>
> Graham Norton, hugely camp presenter of BBC1's latest
> dance-talent-show, is the bane of my life. If I give my name on the
> phone to any receptionist in Britain, I get a surprised giggle in
> return. "Did you say Graham Norton?" Etcetera.
One (ahem!) sympathizes.
--
John W. Kennedy
steve....@gmail.com
> My other faults notwithstanding, I did spell "indispensable" correctly.
Oh come off it man!
Ok, if you want to act like an irrelevant baby, I can send it right
back at you: there's a typo in your whitepaper, one of those pesky ones
which is actually the correct spelling of another word -- it even
happens to be grammatical, so even an automatic grammar checker won't
catch this one. The typo'd word (or should I say misspelled? no, that's
far too nasty and presumptuous) contains the letter 't'. Happy hunting.
Ben A L Jemmett
<1147729803.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Oh come off it man!
>
> Ok, if you want to act like an irrelevant baby,
Mr. Kettle? I have a Mr. Pot for you on line 1.
--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://www.jemmett-software.co.uk/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)
Richard Bos
> PJ wrote:
> > Could it be Steve, that Graham simply isn't a touch typist?
>
> These words are vague intentionally. You read, "I am not a touch
> typist" while I read "I have fewer than ten fingers."
You know, steve, if you didn't interpret everything you read in the most
stupid and unflattering way possible, you might occasionally not come
across as an insufferable twerp. Unlike Pudlo, you seem to have a brain
that can produce readable and intelligent matter beyond purple prose;
but you use it only to get needlessly offended and to offend in turn.
What a waste!
Richard
steve....@gmail.com
Richard Bos wrote:
> [You] get needlessly offended and to offend in turn.
> What a waste!
Right, and right. Of course. What can I say? I apologise and thank you
for your kind words.
Adam Thornton
Richard Bos <rl...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Unlike Pudlo, you seem to have a brain
>that can produce readable and intelligent matter beyond purple prose;
You have misunderestimated _Gamlet_, sir.
Adam
Dave Holland
>Graham Norton, hugely camp presenter of BBC1's latest
>dance-talent-show, is the bane of my life. If I give my name on the
>phone to any receptionist in Britain, I get a surprised giggle in
>return. "Did you say Graham Norton?" Etcetera.
You should take advantage - try to get on live TV as the wrong Graham:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4774429.stm
Dave
Richard Bos
Oh, I don't think I have. That was very well written, very well executed
purple prose full of allusions and pseudo-intellectual games; but purple
prose, all the same, and nowt beyond it.
Richard