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: David Ullrich on Godel
Replies: 19   Last Post: Oct 11, 2012 7:02 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Charlie-Boo

Posts: 1,635
Registered: 2/27/06
Re: David Ullrich on Godel
Posted: Oct 10, 2012 6:37 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Oct 9, 5:24 am, Jack Campin <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 12:01 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> David Ullrich used to append this quotation to his newsgroup postings:
> >> "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
> >> That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

>
> David was quoting a crank.  Somebody much like you two.


Who's that? So Ullrich is a crank? "If you lie with dogs you are a
dog."

What Ullrich was doing is something people occasionally do - but only
if they are emotionally weak and aren't very smart.

1. Someone points out (as I have) a weakness in literature on
Mathematical Logic, in this case, that nobody has published a formal
derivation of incompleteness results (Godel, Rosser, Smullyan) -
especially if they show such a result themselves (also as I have.)
2. Emotionally weak professors want to deny they are unable to
formalize incompleteness results.
3. Two ways come to mind:
a. Say that it's a good idea but it has already been done.
b. Say that it's stupid and everyone knows that.
4. Professors who aren't that smart try to do both i.e. maintain that
"That's stupid and it is already a well-known result." Of course,
this is absurd, but what do you expect from people who aren't that
smart?
5. For (a) Ullrich says (or quotes?) Godel himself did that in the
originlal paper, referring to "his formal proof." For (b) he says it
would be "a mockery of Godel" (without explanation.)
6. Put it together you have: Godel already formally proved his result
and to study that would be a mockery of Godel.

LOL

In other words, we see the sad effects of inbreeding.

BTW Ullrich was blatantly prejudicial to non-professors. I once
mentioned that logic and set theory should be one discipline and he
said how stupid that was. Then someone quoted a group of professors
who are working on that, and the attacks stopped immediately. At
other times I would play a little trick on him. I would quote someone
famous (typically Raymond Smullyan) without quote marks, he would call
it "stupid", then I would quote the source and he would say that's not
what the author said blah-blah-blah. It was so ridiculous.

C-B

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--
> e  m  a  i  l    :    j  a  c  k   @   c  a  m  p  i  n   .   m  e   .   u  k
> Jack Campin,  11 Third Street,  Newtongrange,  Midlothian EH22 4PU,  Scotland
> mobile 07800 739 557       <http://www.campin.me.uk>      Twitter: JackCampin





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.