Talk:The Principles of Mathematics
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Issues
[edit]This book has been closely studied by Ivor Grattan-Guinness, showing that it deserves attention. It seems to be the first book in English devoted to set theory. This Talk will serve to bring improvement to the article by providing space to comment. Many users of the encyclopedia prefer to find faults and make comments instead of corrections, and the Talk is the place to note errors or other failures of the article.Rgdboer (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Incoherence
[edit]It was this sense of "incoherence" that you intended in this edit, I presume? If so, could you wikilink it, please, and maybe even rephrase just a bit to make the intended meaning clear to us amateurs? If it was the vernacular sense you intended then, well, sir, I must ask whether duels are still permitted in your home country? ;-) Russell's a favourite of mine, you see. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that I changed the wording several hours ago in response to your comment. Tkuvho (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the source cited does not use this term, it is perhaps better to stick to the wording found therein. However, incoherence in the generic sense of the term is clearly the intended meaning. Tkuvho (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I did notice; thank you. I'm afraid I don't have access to the sources, or perhaps the expertise to evaluate them if I did. But I love Russell; sometimes I get a headache from trying to understand him, but that's not because he's expressing himself unclearly, it's because he's dealing very concisely with very difficult ideas. On the contrary, no one else I've read can express himself so clearly, exactly, and concisely in his topic area. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- (1) the Ehrlich source seems only to be available at Springer, but the other source cited is freely available at the arxiv. (2) Russell is a first rate philosopher and is certainly capable of expressing himself clearly. What the source appears to argue is that he fell short of his usual standard of clarity in this case. Have you read Russell's discussion of infinitesimals?Tkuvho (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I now see that Ehrlich's text is also freely available here. Tkuvho (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- (1) the Ehrlich source seems only to be available at Springer, but the other source cited is freely available at the arxiv. (2) Russell is a first rate philosopher and is certainly capable of expressing himself clearly. What the source appears to argue is that he fell short of his usual standard of clarity in this case. Have you read Russell's discussion of infinitesimals?Tkuvho (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I did notice; thank you. I'm afraid I don't have access to the sources, or perhaps the expertise to evaluate them if I did. But I love Russell; sometimes I get a headache from trying to understand him, but that's not because he's expressing himself unclearly, it's because he's dealing very concisely with very difficult ideas. On the contrary, no one else I've read can express himself so clearly, exactly, and concisely in his topic area. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've carefully worked through The Principles of Mathematics two or three times over the past 30 years. But every time I pick it up again, I'm always dismayed to see how much I've forgotten. To be candid, it would take me a month or more to be able to evaluate Ehrlich's and Katz's criticisms adequately: I'd have that much to relearn. Perhaps later this summer, but for now I'll have to rely on the good offices of the actual mathematicians and philosophers who frequent this page. as I'm currently in no position to debate on the subject. It's surprising how much one forgets, and how quickly, without working with the ideas in one's career, alas. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how many actual mathematicians are actually interested in Russell in general or this page in particular :) Inspite of being a logicist Russell seems to have gobbled up hook, line, and sinker Cantor's Platonism about set theory. From a distance of a century it is certainly embarrassing to find Russell making statements to the effect that "it is really is true, as Cantor said, that infinite sets, etc." If you can give a coherent account of Russell's position on infinitesimals I would certainly be interested in hearing about it. Tkuvho (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've carefully worked through The Principles of Mathematics two or three times over the past 30 years. But every time I pick it up again, I'm always dismayed to see how much I've forgotten. To be candid, it would take me a month or more to be able to evaluate Ehrlich's and Katz's criticisms adequately: I'd have that much to relearn. Perhaps later this summer, but for now I'll have to rely on the good offices of the actual mathematicians and philosophers who frequent this page. as I'm currently in no position to debate on the subject. It's surprising how much one forgets, and how quickly, without working with the ideas in one's career, alas. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
critical material
[edit]The following material currently appears in a footnote:
- Peirce indicated that he thought it unoriginal. See the first paragraph of his review of What is Meaning? and The Principles of Mathematics (1903), The Nation, v. 77, n. 1998, p. 308, Google Books Eprint, reprinted in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce v. 8 (1958), paragraph 171 footnote. Murray Murphey called the review "so brief and cursory that I am convinced that he never read the book." in Murphy, Murray (1993). The Development of Peirce's Philosophy. Hackett Pub. Co.. p. 241. ISBN 0-87220-231-3. Others such Norbert Wiener and Christine Ladd-Franklin shared Peirce's view of Russell's work. See Anellis, Irving (1995), "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced", Modern Logic 5, 270-328.
It seems to me more of it should make it into the main text. Tkuvho (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- More of it was in the body of the article, at some point in this article's history, perhaps as recently as a year ago or less. I don't have time to verify that at the moment, but I'm almost certain. I agree with you: I think more of it belongs in the body, as well. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I've given it a try. Please edit away if you see fit! Now, I've become the amateur webmaster at the Arisbe website (cspeirce.com) since mid-2011 so I can't just freely add links to papers stored there, but it's okay for me to ask editors here if they want to add such a link. The link is to the paper by Anellis "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced" mentioned in the footnote. I've looked around and can't find it available elsewhere on the Web. http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/anellis/csp&br.htm The Tetrast (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The link has been put in the Pierce footnote. Thank you for the suggestion and data. Another editor can summarize Anellis' view for the modern reviews section.Rgdboer (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)