Paul
Posts:
258
Registered:
7/12/10
|
|
Re: David Ullrich on Godel
Posted:
Oct 8, 2012 10:28 AM
|
|
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:08:20 PM UTC+1, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Paul <pepstein5@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."
>
>
>
> Didn't recall that. Looked up a few old posts. Context matters.
>
> The sig was this:
>
>
>
> >"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a
>
> > mockery of everything Godel was up to." (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to
>
> >the post-grads." in sci.logic.)
>
>
Yes, I should have given the full quote. Sorry about that. I thought that by saying (correctly) that your signature was a quotation, I had said enough.
Regarding the actual quote in the sig, I still don't find it silly or ridiculous. But I interpret the quote differently to you. The part that you object to is "That would make a mockery...". But what is indicated by the word "That"? I interpret "That" to indicate [the belief that Godel's work can only be understood by knowing every technical detail]. Whereas you interpret it to mean [the following of the formal proof of Godel's theorems]. Under your interpretation, I agree that the quote in your former sig is ridiculous.
It's possible that my interpretation is silly/wrong/ignorant etc. But that's what I thought, and that's why I didn't think it was so silly or ridiculous.
Paul Epstein
|
|
