[FOM] Response / cr Gödel book
Palma at ukzn.ac.za
Sun Apr 1 07:29:48 EDT 2012
** Low Priority **
** Reply Requested by 4/1/2012 (Sunday) **
Lucas' work (under many ways of understanding it) recently R. Penrose
appears to me "abusive" of the Goedelian results.
>>> charlie <silver_1 at mindspring.com> 3/29/2012 2:53 AM >>>
What exactly is meant by "serious" abuses of G's thms? I'm
puzzled, since throwing around mistaken versions of G's th'm, Russell's
Paradox, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle etc., are ubiquitous. I
wouldn't know what would make them "serious". It seems clear to me
that the purpose writers have in alluding to these principles is simply
to appear impressive to their audience. Sokal & Bricmont indicate that
flawed technical references often achieve this purpose.
On Mar 26, 2012, at 6:28 PM, // ravi wrote:
> [to the moderators: apologies if this is outside the scope of this
> Hello all,
> while I have come across many positive reviews of Torkel Franzén’s
"Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse” such as
Panu Raatikainen’s in the AMS
(http://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf), searches do not
yield any critical treatment of the book or a defence by those
[implicitly] accused of “abuse” of the result(s). I am curious if there
are any serious ones and I would greatly appreciate any pointers.
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
FOM mailing list
FOM at cs.nyu.edu
Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the FOM