[FOM] Response / cr Gödel book

[Adriano Palma]

** 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.
regards.


>>> 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
list]
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> —ravi
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom

_______________________________________________
FOM mailing list
FOM at cs.nyu.edu
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom

Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20120401/c5565e90/attachment.html>