"Project Logic" #1

[chaz wyman]

Well Boolean logic was made by a man called Boole so I think that makes sense. But Boolean logic is not "mathematics", strictly speaking, I guess it's better to call it "applied logic".

On the other hand, knowing the foundations of mathematics would let you know how to transfer bytes, both as procedure of on's and off's (Boolean logic), and as chunks bytes with pre-defined meanings, into mathematical terms, in turn giving rise to how to make a computer compute, how to make it calculate.

So what has any of this got to do with Russell?

Though I regret to give it as a source, Wikipedia says this:

"PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy since Aristotle's Organon.[1] The Modern Library placed it 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century"

It may also be the fact that doing something wrong, gives other people the idea of the "existence" of the problem and realm at all, and makes them capable of doing it right, improving it, taking hints from the style but ending with different results... I don't know. Google didn't offer much information when I searched for "The legacy of the Principia Mathematica".

Remember that Boolean logic only defines a very tiny realm. It's not very useful to use Boolean logic to develop big systems (at least from the point of view of Machine Code or Assembly language).

We used the term as a short hand for all logic that had to do with a range of conditions that would allow computer gates to operate under a given set of condition - i.e most programming at the high level and low level


Somebody has to make it into proper mathematics, a realm which can deal with big complex jobs, and which has a wide and expansive and heavily developed framework. From the point of view of Theoretical Computer Science, it's all about mathematics anyways, how to find the most effective ways of calculating something.

So what has this got to do with Russell and his personal disappointment?
I don't know the details but a big stumbling block was the problem of the set of all sets; can it be a set of itself - was a key problem.

[chaz wyman]

Kelly, Project Logic will buy your propositional sentence. The argument supporting the sentence appears irrefutable. Email me the name of your PayPal account to receive the money.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

Wow - I did not know it was that easy!

Knowledge is a condition of memory when we remember which attributes relate to the existence of things.

If this is irrefutable then what about knowledge of things that are cot consciously known, such as riding a bike having no attributes. What about forgotten knowledge?

Here's an irrefutable: "The problem that asks is the set of all sets a set of itself, is an unsolvable paradox."
Do I get my ten bucks now?

[The Voice of Time]

So what has this got to do with Russell and his personal disappointment?

because I couldn't find any information in my short research I tried to infer from the content of the book how it relates to computer science

[chaz wyman]

So what has this got to do with Russell and his personal disappointment?

because I couldn't find any information in my short research I tried to infer from the content of the book how it relates to computer science

Inference is the mother of fuck-ups.
Russell's contribution is not to be underestimated, but I don't think we can learn anything about it by assuming stuff we don't know.
I'll take a look, if I get the time.

[Kelly]

Wayne, thanks, I love PayPal, I've bought all my computers for the last ten years on eBay and pay with PayPal.

Thinkers became scientist when thinking to understand the existence of physical things became a systematic process guided by mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry etc. This left philosophers to think about non physical things or abstract universals/concepts e.g.:
EXISTENCE/REALITY
KNOWLEDGE/ IDEAS/CONSCIOUSNESS
LOGIC
TRUTH
RIGHT
MEANING
NEED
and other abstract concepts.

The result of their thinking is the limitless number of propositional sentences philosophers have written that is the Fundamental Philosophy mankind is exposed to today. Unfortunately, there has never existed a systematic process to guide the thinking of philosopher and few if any of their propositional sentences can be supported by logical argument.

The propositional sentences of philosophers have caused mankind enormous confusion for the last twenty five centuries passed from generation to generation . Obvious proof of this is the confusion in the philosophical community itself demonstrated by the many Schools of Philosophy or different ways of attempting to explain the same philosophical concepts and all conflicting with each other. This confusion has been extremely debilitating to the ability of the rest of mankind to think in a rational philosophical way.

Rational philosophical thinking is the mental process of satisfying our human needs by recognizing the attributes that equate to a satisfactory state of our own existence. This requires that everyone have the same logical understanding of the nature of knowledge to understand the rational process of thought necessary to construct knowledge how to satisfy our needs without causing problems for ourselves and others. Unfortunately for mankind, philosophers have confused the process of rational thinking by confusing the nature of knowledge.

[chaz wyman]

Never give account information out over the Internet unless you know who you are giving it to!

[The Voice of Time]

Chaz, you don't get very far with just an account number. Or else publicly accessible account numbers (which there are plenty of for various reasons and purposes) would've been hijacked long ago.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, you don't get very far with just an account number. Or else publicly accessible account numbers (which there are plenty of for various reasons and purposes) would've been hijacked long ago.

True, but have you actually heard from Leggitt?

Take a look at the whole thread. A poster asks for a logical statement for payment.
Then a complete newcomer offers a banal statement, and is offered cash.
Person 2 then says thanks and says how great PayPal is.

I can't imagine anyone paying for a ridiculous statement like that. Irrefutable? Who is he kidding?

Kelly joined on the 16th November, the day s/he offered the statement.

I can't say that phishing is going on, but there is something fishy going on.

[The Voice of Time]

Yeah. The guy doesn't realize the absurdness of his own project, and tries to boost it with a 10$ advertising encouragement. Give him a couple of more sentences and he'll soon stop the tap, realizing he gains nothing himself, unless he's rich of course and just happens to have a hobby of giving away money for nothing.

[chaz wyman]

Yeah. The guy doesn't realize the absurdness of his own project, and tries to boost it with a 10$ advertising encouragement. Give him a couple of more sentences and he'll soon stop the tap, realizing he gains nothing himself, unless he's rich of course and just happens to have a hobby of giving away money for nothing.

We'll see. He seems to have gone quiet after 'giving away" $10 to Kelly - who ever she is.

[wleg]

Kelly, Project Logic will buy three (3) more of your propositional sentences.

Wayne Leggette Sr

[wleg]

Offer To Purchase: Project Logic will pay ten dollars (total of one hundred dollars) for propositional sentences written by philosophers during and since the time of Plato if the subject or the predicate of the sentence is one of the listed concepts and the sentence can be justified by logical argument.

EXISTENCE/REALITY
KNOWLEDGE/ IDEAS/CONSCIOUSNESS
LOGIC
TRUTH
RIGHT
MEANING
NEED

[chaz wyman]

Offer To Purchase: Project Logic will pay ten dollars (total of one hundred dollars) for propositional sentences written by philosophers during and since the time of Plato if the subject or the predicate of the sentence is one of the listed concepts and the sentence can be justified by logical argument.

EXISTENCE/REALITY
KNOWLEDGE/ IDEAS/CONSCIOUSNESS
LOGIC
TRUTH
RIGHT
MEANING
NEED

I'm a bit puzzled that you think "Knowledge is a condition of memory when we remember which attributes relate to the existence of things." fulfils your criteria.

If this is irrefutable then what about knowledge of things that are cot consciously known, such as riding a bike having no attributes. What about forgotten knowledge?

Here's an irrefutable: "The problem that asks is the set of all sets a set of itself, is an unsolvable paradox."
Do I get my ten bucks now?

[wleg]

Kelly, The Project will pay you to respond to Chaz with an irrefutable argument.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Kelly]

Chaz,

If there is no behavior we can voluntarily engage in without thinking to do it. And there is nothing about riding a bike we can think about without remembering what a bike is. And no way to recognize a bike from any other thing except we have stored in memory the attributes of a bike. And no way we can engage in the behavior of riding a bike unless we have stored in memory the attributes that equate to the behavior of riding e.g., mounting the bike with our hands on the handlebars and our feet on the peddles, pressing down on the peddles and once we begin moving to balance ourselves by turning the front wheel in the direction we are falling.

Philosophical knowledge is not about riding a bike, philosophical knowledge is about how we know how we know or are conscious.