Mike,
You wrote,
"Unless you are going up against Goedel, there IS presumably an answer, a way to figure "it" out."
which made me think I might have created a false idea about Godel, maybe not. I don't think Godel was trying to show "there is no answer".
My understanding of Godel comes from Newman's book: Godel's Proof, which is written so that anyone who understands arithmetic can get an idea what Godel did. He was basically refuting Russell and Whitehead's attempt to reduce mathematics to logic, that is, to refute the idea that given certain axioms (Peano's basically) that all of math would follow thereon according to the laws of first-order logic--it must be admitted that along the way Russell did develop his theory of types from which Bateson got so much mileage. Godel simply showed that you can't do this. I can't say I have understood Godel's proof, but I did understand the book of the same name. At least I think I did.
It really comes down to saying that numbers are "out there", which should be OK for CHAT folk since the mind itself is "out there", not inside the head, from a CHAT perspective, isn't it. Math, as practiced by mathematicians, is really the "theory of math" not the math itself, e.g., weavers perform incredibly complex arithmetical operations in order to produce their designs without having the slightest knowledge of that theory or any formal training in arithmetic
Paul Dillon
Paul
Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
Ed-- Sorry-- I needed a quiet enough moment to read your example, re-read
your
initial inquiry, and then come back to your initial example.
There are two things you need to know in interpreting my response. First, I
am TERRIBLE
at proofs such as that you give for the infinite number of prime numbers. I
would have failed
at several points, but the essential starting point (suppose the opposite is
true and show it can't be)
would not occur to me never mind I would screw up at some other bifurcation
point!
Second, I am married to a fiction writer.
I sometimes get the feeling that maybe what you are saying could be true of
Dickens, but to describe
the experiences and events that constitute one of my wife's books as "the
writing writing itself" would
simply go against all I have witnessed and been party to. The only way I
could get there is if all of the
incredibly uneven backs and forths, and getting stuck in blind alleys, and
then getting distracted by
other life exigencies and then returning, reaching "an" end only to have a
completely different end
emerge, if THAT is writing itself, then ok. But what an "itself"!!
We sometimes discuss how what I do is different. I, presumably, write about
"things as they are" such as,
for example, the role of culture and biology in ontogenesis. There is a
putative, as if reality out there (I
naively assume) and I set out to write about it, to describe it, to
speculate about, to (ha ha!!) explain it. What
I write seems a whole lot easier to do than what my wife does...... and what
she does seems, in some ways
to be "halfway" between what I do and a mathematical proof. Unless you are
going up against Goedel, there IS
presumably an answer, a way to figure "it" out. But what if there is no if,
if if has to be created from...........
So I write fictions that pass as descritions of reality and my wife creates
descriptions of a reality that pass as
fictions.
I doubt if that helps you, but it helped me. thanks
mike
On 1/2/07, Ed Wall wrote:
>
> Mike
>
> Here is a sort of expansion (and I am by no means sure about the
> authoring business, but the process sounded somehow similar) and
> perhaps the best place to begin is with a story. A number of year ago
> I was teach a graduate course in mathematics and had, for most of the
> period, been working on one or two proofs. At the end of class, a
> young woman approached me (she was, my impression, one of the more
> knowledgeable students) and said something like "I understood
> everything you did, but I didn't understand why you did it. I don't
> think I'll ever be able to do proofs." I said the usual dumb thing
> something like "It is just a matter of writing down what you were
> doing and you'll catch on after doing it for awhile and I've just
> been doing it for awhile" and left it at that.
> Latter that day and yet still I've been thinking about this. I
> tend, I suspect like a lot of others who teach some content, to have
> an idea of the direction and a 'feel' for the terrain and then,
> depending on where people are at, tend to somewhat improvise. What
> makes it difficult is that the young woman was asking me for a
> 'formula' for proof and there, in a sense, isn't one. One's beginning
> constrains one somewhat, one pulls out of experience some likely
> scenarios which have their own affordances and limitations, and one
> sort of keeps one's end in sight (sort of what Dewey talks about in
> the Theory of Inquiry).
>
> Perhaps another way to say it is that in a moderately complex
> proof there seems to before the 'novice' a huge amount of leeway as
> almost every time you write a line you come to a bifurcation point.
> However, that is misleading as what has gone before both supports and
> simultaneously constrains where you can 'reasonably' go next (holding
> that end in sight).
>
> Let me be more specific and give a very simple example (there is a
> lot missing form this so this isn't exactly what I had in mind, but
> it perhaps illustrates). Okay, I want to prove there are an infinite
> number of prime numbers. The wrong way to do this is write some
> formula which gives you an infinite number of primes. There isn't
> one. [bifurcation] So a scenario would be to assume the converse -
> i.e. there are only a finite number of primes and show this leads to
> a contradiction (hence, showing 'logically' that there is indeed an
> infinite number of primes). [bifurcation] Now you have an finite
> number of something so you write them down (skipping 1 just in case
> you want that to be a prime) p1, p2, p3, out to pN and, of course as
> you are working with primes (and they are mucked up with
> multiplication and division), you write the product p1*p2* out to pN
> and set that equal to K. [bifurcation] Then you look at K+1.
> [bifurcation] Well, K+1 certainly isn't divisible by p1 or p2 out to
> pN so either K+1 is a prime or there is a prime pm less than K+1 that
> was not in the original list. Hence a contradiction as was hoped for.
>
> Okay, I've used some basic knowledge about primes to begin and
> that with some arithmetic has both constrained and enabled the proof
> at each step. However, there is a sense in which I know that the
> appropriate thing to do is multiply the primes and then, of course,
> adding 1 is the elegant thing to do (smile).
>
> Does this help?
>
> Ed
>
> >Ed--
> >Never mind off topic. We are always shifting topics. And I would be happy
> to
> >respond usefully to your query if I knew how!! The problem is that I do
> not
> >understand
> >what you wrote! I am GUESSING that what you are talking about has to do
> with
> >origins and
> >change. ("the mathematics one does is both circumscribed and supported by
> >the math one is
> >doing" coupled with expertise-- which I think of as a developmental
> >process). But I cannot get
> >from that to authoring a novel. And I am not even sure what the math
> example
> >is about. Can you
> >expand?
> >
> >I am not sure, either, what David is after. My suggestions were intended
> to
> >focus on the origins
> >or graphic representations of ....... things.... ideas...... language
> (all
> >big issues in the history of writing).I picked my
> >suggestions for David thinking that what he was interested in the origins
> of
> >scripts of various kinds. Others have gone
> >to goody and watt on the consequences of writing, ong, etc. Havelock is
> an
> >interesting "half way" point because he makes
> >a big deal of the special properties of the alphabet and hits on Chinese
> >ideographic writing.
> >
> >Perhaps you can expand? (And be ready for someone to comment on the
> article
> >of the month-for-discussion, although who knows!!)
> >
> >mike
> >On 1/2/07, Ed Wall wrote:
> >>
> >>Mike and all
> >>
> >> This is not quite on the topic (and, thus, I have held back a
> >>bit), but given the amount of expertise that people are bringin I ask
> >>a question I have asked elsewhere (I apologize for how it is phrased,
> >>but something like this was appropriate in that particular community):
> >>
> >>> I had a question and wonder if you might point me in a useful
> >>>direction(s). The situation is such: It has been argued of late that
> >>>the work mathematicians do - proof and the such - proceeds within the
> >>>mathematics being created. That is, without going into a lot of
> >>>detail, the mathematics one does is both circumscribed and supported
> >>>by the mathematics one is doing. This is not exactly a matter of
> >>>prior knowledge or the hermeneutic circle per se although it might
> >>>have something to do with being an 'expert.'
> >>> The reason why I am asking is that, the other day in a somewhat
> >>>philosophic discussion around a novel, a participant noted that some
> >>>authors describe the authoring process as open-ended in the sense
> >>>that what finally takes place may differ from what was originally
> >>>intended. That is, in a certain sense, the writing writes itself. As
> >>>this sounded somewhat parallel to the phenomenon I mentioned in
> >>>mathematics, I was wondering if you knew of someone(s) who makes
> >>>remarks about a similar phenomenon re writing.
> >>
> >>Ed Wall
> >>
> >>>Hi David--
> >>>
> >>>There is a LOT of material on the topic of writing systems.
> >>>Two interesting places to start are:
> >>>
> >>>D. Schmandt-Besserat, Before Writing:. U of Texas Press. 1992 (two
> >>volumes)
> >>>
> >>>R. Harris. The origin of writing. Open Court. 1986.
> >>>
> >>>David Olson has written extensively on this topic, primarily from
> >>secondary
> >>>sources.
> >>>
> >>>I am unsure of best sources that delve into origins of writing in China
> >>>which were more or less co-incident with
> >>>events in Euphrates area.
> >>>mike
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>xmca mailing list
> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>xmca mailing list
> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:31 PST