Timeline for Did Russell understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2020 at 18:50 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 28, 2019 at 14:54 | comment | added | user20253 | In just the same way Russell did not grasp the meaning of the calculus of Spencer Brown, which has a direct relevance to Godel's work and to the foundations of set theory. When I asked Brown about this he replied, in a kindly and wistful tone of voice, "Oh, Bertie was a fool". This seems to sum it up. Great man in many ways but very dense in certain respects. . . | |
| Jan 4, 2019 at 10:30 | comment | added | user21820 | @ArtemKaznatcheev: I lost the comment I was typing. Basically, you must go through a rigorous proof of Godel's theorems yourself, and then you would know how little Russell understood. If you have basic knowledge of classical logic and programming, this (first half) should give a self-contained proof. For a conventional proof read Peter Smith's "Godel without tears". Hence questions about how much Russell understood do not need to be answered by citing anyone. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 14:58 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | Thank you for those comments @user21820, I feel like they could be put together into an answer (which would be easier to find and read than the comments). | |
| Dec 13, 2018 at 7:21 | comment | added | user21820 | Russell himself admitted as much in a postscript to a 1943 article by Godel: "His great ability, as shown in his previous work, makes me think it highly probable that many of his criticisms of me are justified. The writing of Principia Mathematica was completed thirty-three years ago, and obviously, in view of subsequent advances in the subject, it needs amending in various ways. [...] I must therefore ask the reader to give Dr. Gödel’s work the attention that it deserves, and to form his own critical judgment on it." | |
| Dec 13, 2018 at 7:14 | comment | added | user21820 | Russell is indeed rather sloppy for a logician. For example: "[in] Principia Mathematica [...] the syntax is never precisely described, and the axioms and rules of inference are presented in a way that mixes together the syntax with its intended meaning. The formalism appears to be inextricably tied to its informal interpretation. [...] it is this last feature of Russell’s logic that seems to have led to some misunderstandings on his part." − (Russell and Godel). | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 12:16 | vote | accept | Artem Kaznatcheev | ||
| Oct 30, 2016 at 12:15 | vote | accept | Artem Kaznatcheev | ||
| Oct 30, 2016 at 12:15 | |||||
| Oct 29, 2016 at 20:52 | comment | added | Kent Brosveen | Your comments on Boolean algebra are well taken especially on light of complex adaptive systems.Russell could be a very inconsistent thinker. For example his book "Why I am not a Christian" is silly and poorly expressed. I myself am not a Christian but not because of his book! Unfortunately some of this heuristic nonsense populates some of his "deeper" thoughts as well. Unfortunately there is little understanding among logicians and mathematicians of the subjective nature of the mind from which supposedly objective ideas spring. What it appears we are left with in the name of clarity and insig | |
| Oct 9, 2016 at 18:28 | answer | added | George Chen | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 4, 2015 at 3:13 | comment | added | Nelson Alexander | Not entirely off topic, I hope. Russell greatly admired the "philosophical" stance of Frege when Russell's paradox dashed his hopes for completion. Russell wearied of the logical technicalities of philosophy and felt beaten down by Wittgenstein on one side and Godel on the other. He became a humanist, and perhaps, in some sense, a greater or more "timeless" philosopher. | |
| Apr 11, 2014 at 6:37 | comment | added | Max | In fact, stack exchange questions are licensed under creative commons with attribution, @user2539 must link back here | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 12:58 | answer | added | Monad | timeline score: 10 | |
| S May 21, 2013 at 18:28 | history | suggested | user3164 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed Gödel name
|
| May 21, 2013 at 17:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 21, 2013 at 18:28 | |||||
| Oct 14, 2012 at 1:39 | vote | accept | Artem Kaznatcheev | ||
| Oct 30, 2016 at 12:15 | |||||
| Oct 14, 2012 at 1:35 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | @AnonymousCoward I think my posts here count as creative commons, so you may do with them what you like. Although copy-and-pasting my question into an unattributed question with no back-links is hardly cross-posting, so I would appreciate more if you either attributed correctly or acknowledged that you simply copied not cross-posted. The atmosphere at quora does not appeal to me (for reasons like this), and I doubt I will be interested in making an account. Thank you for the invite, though. | |
| Oct 13, 2012 at 13:00 | answer | added | Niel de Beaudrap | timeline score: 33 | |
| Oct 13, 2012 at 6:00 | comment | added | user2539 | Artem, I cross-posted this question for you, I hope you don't mind (I see you don't have a Quora account) This excellent answer to your question might encourage you to start posting your questions there :) quora.com/Bertrand-Russell/… | |
| Oct 12, 2012 at 18:02 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/256817251527819264 | ||
| Oct 12, 2012 at 5:25 | history | asked | Artem Kaznatcheev | CC BY-SA 3.0 |