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:
Matheology § 300
Replies:
15
Last Post:
Jul 7, 2013 6:43 PM




Re: Matheology § 300
Posted:
Jul 6, 2013 9:20 PM


Am 07/06/2013 02:43 PM, schrieb mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de: > On Friday, 5 July 2013 20:39:56 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > >> There is no first class university in the English speaking world that would allow its teachers to impose anything like WM's wild weird world of WMytheology on its students. > > So Cambridge is not a first class university? But probably only after you have been there. > > For several terms at Cambridge in 1939, Ludwig Wittgenstein lectured on the philosophical foundations of mathematics. ... These lectures were attended by, > among others, D. A. T. Gasking, J. N. Findlay, Stephen Toulmin, Alan Turing. > [Cora Diamond (ed.): "Wittgenstein's Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge 1939 from the notes taken by R. G. Bosanquet, Norman Malcolm, Rush Rhees, and Yorick Smythies", The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1975)] > > What did he say? > > Imagine set theory's having been invented by a satirist as a kind of parody on mathematics. ? Later a reasonable meaning was seen in it and it was incorporated into mathematics. (For if one person can see it as a paradise of mathematicians, why should not another see it as a joke?) > > The curse of the invasion of mathematics by mathematical logic is that now any proposition can be represented in a mathematical symbolism, and this makes us feel obliged to understand it. Although of course this method of writing is nothing but the translation of vague ordinary prose. > > "Mathematical logic" has completely deformed the thinking of mathematicians and of philosophers, > > Set theory is wrong. > > I believe, and I hope, that a future generation will laugh at this hocus pocus. > > Yes, we do (WM)
Even if those words should have been spoken within the university at Cambridge this would not in any way make your crap less crappy. Wittgenstein is obviously not talking to you, as can be seen on p.14 of the above mentioned lectures: "Another reason is that all the puzzles I will discuss can be exemplified by the most elementary mathematics ?in calculations which we learn from ages six to fifteen, or in what we easily might have learned, for example, Cantor's proof." That is, Wittgensein addresses people who have at least the modest capability to grasp Cantor's proof at age fifteen, and not those who, while already being much older biologically, waste some 15 years to misunderstand it.
But here is another problem. I asked my computer to search the text of Wittgenstein's lectures for some strings. Result: "atirist" 0 hits "arody" 0 hits "incorporated" 0 hits "paradise" 4 hits, 3 on p.99, 1 on p.103, 0 with your alleged context "joke" 1 hit on p.169, not in your alleged context "curse" 0 hits "deformed" 0 hits "laugh" 1 hit on p.32, not in your alleged context "hocus" 0 hits The software detects strings extending over linebreaks. I hope in your interest that you can provide a substantiated explanation for this.



