The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: quotation
Replies: 21   Last Post: Aug 27, 1996 12:42 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
james dolan

Posts: 93
Registered: 12/8/04
Re: quotation
Posted: Aug 21, 1996 2:21 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

ilias kastanas writes:

-In article <4vadtn$>,
-james dolan <> wrote:
-@ilias kastanas writes:
-@-In article <4v27do$>,
-@-james dolan <> wrote:
-@->ilias kastanas writes:
-@->- His dream was first, a precise symbolic language ("characteristica
-@->- universalis") to express everything in science 'and philosophy' (it is
-@->- not clear how _wide_ this was to be) and second, a computational method
-@->- ("calculus ratiocinator") to resolve statements in that language. I
-@->- don't remember whether he actually envisaged a machine doing the work.
-@->- I recall the quote that instead of quarrels and squabbles people would
-@->- say "Calculemus".
-@->- Limited to mathematics, the dream did come true;
-@->of course it did _not_ come true. as you well know it was destroyed
-@->by (among others) goedel.
-@- It did come true. You are confusing Goedel Incompleteness with
-@- Goedel Completeness.
-@no i am not. you are speaking total nonsense.
- No, just partial nonsense: obviously you cannot confuse what
- you don't know.
- The dream came true, as you will see if you learn the Completeness
- Thm. And if you ever shed your jejune rudeness you might even find someone
- to discuss it with.

i think it's a much less strained reading of leibniz's words that
leibniz was asking for a decision procedure for deciding the truth of
statements in the language, than whatever it is you're claiming
leibniz meant.

i know that you understand the completeness theorem and the
incompleteness theorem as well as i do, so i can't suggest with a
straight face that it is some misunderstanding of them on your part
that explains why you're continuing to speak total nonsense. perhaps
it is some sort of linguistic difficulty you have that might explain

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.