ARI Objectivist Seminar in Boston

[galtgulch]

Here is a link to the catalog of the Summer Seminar in Boston:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon...catalog2009.pdf

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a link to the catalog of the Summer Seminar in Boston:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon...catalog2009.pdf

I looked at the session B3S1, the correspondent is Pat Corvial. He(or she) asserts that the concept of limit (in the mathematical sense) is not fully understood. My reply: BULLSHIT! The notion of limit was defined rigorously by Cauchy in the 1840s and has been completely understood since the invention of analytic or point set topology in the 1870s. That is going on 200 years. He (or she) writes utter nonsense.

What kind of shit are they peddling at these Objectivist conferences? These Suni and Shi'ite Objectivist have little or no grasp of the mathematics. Which perhaps explains why there are no world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Here is a link to the catalog of the Summer Seminar in Boston:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon...catalog2009.pdf

I looked at the session B3S1, the correspondent is Pat Corvial. He(or she) asserts that the concept of limit (in the mathematical sense) is not fully understood. My reply: BULLSHIT! The notion of limit was defined rigorously by Cauchy in the 1840s and has been completely understood since the invention of analytic or point set topology in the 1870s. That is going on 200 years. He (or she) writes utter nonsense.

What kind of shit are they peddling at these Objectivist conferences? These Suni and Shi'ite Objectivist have little or no grasp of the mathematics. Which perhaps explains why there are no world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals.

In any case math isn't Objectivism. Math is math.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Here is a link to the catalog of the Summer Seminar in Boston:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon...catalog2009.pdf

I looked at the session B3S1, the correspondent is Pat Corvial. He(or she) asserts that the concept of limit (in the mathematical sense) is not fully understood. My reply: BULLSHIT! The notion of limit was defined rigorously by Cauchy in the 1840s and has been completely understood since the invention of analytic or point set topology in the 1870s. That is going on 200 years. He (or she) writes utter nonsense.

What kind of shit are they peddling at these Objectivist conferences? These Suni and Shi'ite Objectivist have little or no grasp of the mathematics. Which perhaps explains why there are no world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

Don't look for the ARI crew to make sense in areas of mathematics or physics. Their track record is bad on those subjects.

I don't know the basis of your last sentence. Perhaps what you really meant is to type "Which perhaps explains why I (Bob) am not personally aware of any world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals." This leads me to wonder what knowledge of the philosophy of those publishing in the mathematics journals you may possess, and by what means that knowledge was acquired. Perhaps you could enlighten us on that subject.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a link to the catalog of the Summer Seminar in Boston:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon...catalog2009.pdf

I looked at the session B3S1, the correspondent is Pat Corvial. He(or she) asserts that the concept of limit (in the mathematical sense) is not fully understood. My reply: BULLSHIT! The notion of limit was defined rigorously by Cauchy in the 1840s and has been completely understood since the invention of analytic or point set topology in the 1870s. That is going on 200 years. He (or she) writes utter nonsense.

What kind of shit are they peddling at these Objectivist conferences? These Suni and Shi'ite Objectivist have little or no grasp of the mathematics. Which perhaps explains why there are no world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

Don't look for the ARI crew to make sense in areas of mathematics or physics. Their track record is bad on those subjects.

I don't know the basis of your last sentence. Perhaps what you really meant is to type "Which perhaps explains why I (Bob) am not personally aware of any world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals." This leads me to wonder what knowledge of the philosophy of those publishing in the mathematics journals you may possess, and by what means that knowledge was acquired. Perhaps you could enlighten us on that subject.

Bill P (Alfonso)

I, Bob, personally read the journals. I have yet to see an author of articles in said journals reference Rand and her works.

My annoyance with the so-called mathematics lecture still stands, for the reasons I gave. I wish Objectivists would stick to economics and politics and stay away from science for which they qua Objectivists are clearly unqualified. Since neither economics nor politics are sciences and are generally not empirically grounded it is possible to have an opinion (even a learned opinion) without seeming absurd.

Since Objectivism is applied Aristotelean thinking it has approximately zero chance of being of any bloody use in the physical sciences. Physics was purged of its Aristotelean dross around the time of Galileo and Newton. It is is well that it is so purged.

Aristotelean thinking can still be applied to ethics, politics and even economics since economics is essentially an application of ethics (value for value is an ethical principle). So Aristotle could still be of some conceivable use in these areas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Here is a link to the catalog of the Summer Seminar in Boston:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon...catalog2009.pdf

I looked at the session B3S1, the correspondent is Pat Corvial. He(or she) asserts that the concept of limit (in the mathematical sense) is not fully understood. My reply: BULLSHIT! The notion of limit was defined rigorously by Cauchy in the 1840s and has been completely understood since the invention of analytic or point set topology in the 1870s. That is going on 200 years. He (or she) writes utter nonsense.

What kind of shit are they peddling at these Objectivist conferences? These Suni and Shi'ite Objectivist have little or no grasp of the mathematics. Which perhaps explains why there are no world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

Don't look for the ARI crew to make sense in areas of mathematics or physics. Their track record is bad on those subjects.

I don't know the basis of your last sentence. Perhaps what you really meant is to type "Which perhaps explains why I (Bob) am not personally aware of any world class or even moderately good Objectivist mathematicians publishing in the journals." This leads me to wonder what knowledge of the philosophy of those publishing in the mathematics journals you may possess, and by what means that knowledge was acquired. Perhaps you could enlighten us on that subject.

Bill P (Alfonso)

I, Bob, personally read the journals. I have yet to see an author of articles in said journals reference Rand and her works.

My annoyance with the so-called mathematics lecture still stands, for the reasons I gave. I wish Objectivists would stick to economics and politics and stay away from science for which they qua Objectivists are clearly unqualified. Since neither economics nor politics are sciences and are generally not empirically grounded it is possible to have an opinion (even a learned opinion) without seeming absurd.

Since Objectivism is applied Aristotelean thinking it has approximately zero chance of being of any bloody use in the physical sciences. Physics was purged of its Aristotelean dross around the time of Galileo and Newton. It is is well that it is so purged.

Aristotelean thinking can still be applied to ethics, politics and even economics since economics is essentially an application of ethics (value for value is an ethical principle). So Aristotle could still be of some conceivable use in these areas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

As do I (read the journals, and publish in them also). My Erdos number is 3. What is yours?

I certainly agree that I do not find people publishing in mathematics or statistics journals and mentioning that they are Objectivist or not. I know of mathematicians and statisticians who are Objectivists. Or that they mention their political affilitation. I do not conclude this that no Republicans publish in mathematical or statistical journals (I know in fact of many Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians who publish in mathematical and statistical journals.). It just doesn't come up.

And of course Pat Corvini (isn't that the spelling of the last name) is being silly in suggesting limits are not well defined. This is at root tied to the typical Objectivist rejection of "infinity."

I heartily concur that Objectivists would do well to steer clear of Mathematics and Statistics until such time as they are willing to think in a non-second-hander way, and not just fall in line with the dogma from ARI. I am not competent to make a judgment in the area of physics (haven't spent the time to understand what they are attempting to say) but what I see doesn't look good in the area of Physics, either.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[BaalChatzaf]

As do I (read the journals, and publish in them also). My Erdos number is 3. What is yours?

My gig was applied mathematics. I was one of the people who developed a compression and decompression algorithm for radar terrain data which was the guidance system for cruise missiles before GPS and is still used as a back up. I also developed algorithms for cleaning up radar data based on a discrete analog to the Laplacian. I don't have an Erdos number but I am responsible (in part) for the deaths of thousands of our enemies. While I have no Erdos number I have scalps on my belt and I am proud of each and every one. When I ended my career as a (second hand) killer I took up the development of data base systems (the applied logic of n-adic relations). That was the peaceful part of my career.

My boyhood ambition was to be a warrior, but health issues prevented that. So I settled for being a tool smith for the warriors. I would have preferred to kill and maim first hand, but one gets what one can. I was a force multiplier for death and destruction (of our enemies) and I will always have that.

Delenda Cartago est (Carthage is destroyed!).

Could you provide a reference to your published works. I would like to read them. I think you are the first Objectivist mathematician I have run across.l

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Neil Parille]

Can anyone recommend an introductory book on the philosophy or theory of mathematics?

-NEIL

[Neil Parille]

Pat Corvini.PhD, Electrical Engineering, 1995, University of California,Santa Barbara

Dr. Corvini is an independent scholar in the history and philosophy of

mathematics. Her long-term research interests center on the nature of

abstraction and the role of induction in math. She has lectured at several

previous Objectivist summer conferences and is writing a book on the

nature of mathematical concepts.

[BaalChatzaf]

Pat Corvini.PhD, Electrical Engineering, 1995, University of California,Santa Barbara

Dr. Corvini is an independent scholar in the history and philosophy of

mathematics. Her long-term research interests center on the nature of

abstraction and the role of induction in math. She has lectured at several

previous Objectivist summer conferences and is writing a book on the

nature of mathematical concepts.

How could she have said such nonsense on the theory of limits which is well founded and rigorously defined? Some scholar. The matter of limits has been placed on a rock solid foundation by Cauchy and Dedikind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 21, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Delenda Cartago est (Carthage is destroyed!).

A proper translation would be Carthage is to be destroyed or Carthage is for destroying. Destroyed would be deleta, no?

[BaalChatzaf]

Delenda Cartago est (Carthage is destroyed!).

A proper translation would be Carthage is to be destroyed or Carthage is for destroying. Destroyed would be deleta, no?

quid? vexari me?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

As do I (read the journals, and publish in them also). My Erdos number is 3. What is yours?

My gig was applied mathematics. I was one of the people who developed a compression and decompression algorithm for radar terrain data which was the guidance system for cruise missiles before GPS and is still used as a back up. I also developed algorithms for cleaning up radar data based on a discrete analog to the Laplacian. I don't have an Erdos number but I am responsible (in part) for the deaths of thousands of our enemies. While I have no Erdos number I have scalps on my belt and I am proud of each and every one. When I ended my career as a (second hand) killer I took up the development of data base systems (the applied logic of n-adic relations). That was the peaceful part of my career.

My boyhood ambition was to be a warrior, but health issues prevented that. So I settled for being a tool smith for the warriors. I would have preferred to kill and maim first hand, but one gets what one can. I was a force multiplier for death and destruction (of our enemies) and I will always have that.

Delenda Cartago est (Carthage is destroyed!).

Could you provide a reference to your published works. I would like to read them. I think you are the first Objectivist mathematician I have run across.l

Ba'al Chatzaf

Done by personal message.

Bill P (ALfonso)

[Alfonso Jones]

Can anyone recommend an introductory book on the philosophy or theory of mathematics?

-NEIL

Neil -

Give us an idea of your mathematical background so I can make an appropriate recommendation. What sorts of math courses have you had in the past, etc...?

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Jon Letendre]

I love:

Journey Through Genius

William Dunham

[Neil Parille]

Bill,

I studied calculus in college (2 semesters) some years ago. That's it.

-NEIL

[BaalChatzaf]

Bill,

I studied calculus in college (2 semesters) some years ago. That's it.

-NEIL

If you wish to resume your studies of mathematics, review your algebra. That is the finger exercise necessary to play more complex pieces.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill,

I studied calculus in college (2 semesters) some years ago. That's it.

-NEIL

Neil -

That is helpful information. If you want to learn about the history and development of mathematics, you might find Howard Eves' "History of Mathematics" to be a useful read. The technical level is NOT demanding (the book is often used as a college text for people majoring in education and planning on being qualified to teach junior high or high school mathematics).

It's pricey (around USD $130) but used copies should be abundantly available through the usual channels since it is used as a text.

There's lots of other material which really doesn't require much in the way of prerequisites to understand.

Another great book on mathematical theory: P. R. Halmos' Naive Set Theory. Like SOME great mathematics books, minimal technical mathematics being required to read, but lots of patience and willingness to engage.

Something at a higher level - Kleene's Metamathematics. Check it out at Amazon for some reviews and further information.

But when all is said - - - start with Eves and then decide if you want to go on after that...

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited December 23, 2008 by Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Bill,

I studied calculus in college (2 semesters) some years ago. That's it.

-NEIL

If you wish to resume your studies of mathematics, review your algebra. That is the finger exercise necessary to play more complex pieces.

Petr Beckmann told me, practically a mathematical illiterate, that algebra was "easy." I challenged him on this and he admitted there was one type of very abstract, advanced algebra that wasn't "easy." He didn't say it was hard for him.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Petr Beckmann told me, practically a mathematical illiterate, that algebra was "easy." I challenged him on this and he admitted there was one type of very abstract, advanced algebra that wasn't "easy." He didn't say it was hard for him.

--Brant

Beckmann was brilliant. A bit of a crack-pot but brilliant all the same. He never held with Special Relativity despite all the experimental confirmation. He was an aetherist to his dying breath.

The mechanical (or rote aspects) of algebra are not that hard, but the idea is to make mathematical manipulation as transparent as possible so you can spend time on the real stuff. It is like playing scales for a musician.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Bill:

This may not be the endorsement that you think it is lol! People majoring in education are actually banning the use of red pens for marking a student's papers because it would "make them feel bad" and it is a violent color that threatens the poor little mushlike minds! AGGGHHH

"That is helpful information. If you want to learn about the history and development of mathematics, you might find Howard Eves' "History of Mathematics" to be a useful read. The technical level is NOT demanding (the book is often used as a college text for people majoring in education and planning on being qualified to teach junior high or high school mathematics)."

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a link to the catalog of the Summer Seminar in Boston:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon...catalog2009.pdf

Look at Knapp's lecture A4S1. He claims Euclid's arguments are valid. In point of fact Eucid's axomatization of plane and solid geometry are full of logical holes which is why Hilbert presented a complete proper axiomatic system in his "Grundlagen des Geometrie" (Foundation of Geometry) in 1899. It took about 2200 years to get Euclid right. Euclid had a good start, but by modern standards his axiomatic system was both geometrically and logically defective.

Look at the construction of a perpendicular bisector of a line segment in Book I proposition 10. This requires constructing two circles each centered at the end points of the given segment with radius greater than one half the length of the segment. The way the construction works is to see where the circles cross (at two points ) and construction the line connecting those two points to give the perpendicular bisection of the given line segment.

There is only one trouble. None of Euclid's postulates guarantee that two crossing circles intersect at points. That is a Big Hole. Also all of the congruence proofs depending on picking up a triangle and moving it from Here to There. None of his axioms or postulates mention any kind of motion for triangles for the basis of determining coincidence of sides, vertices or angle. Another Big Hole.

Does this Knapp fellow know what he is talking about?

Now you know why I gnash my teeth and rend my garments and tear at my hair when Sunni and Shi'ite Objectivists pontificate on matters mathematical.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 24, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill:

This may not be the endorsement that you think it is lol! People majoring in education are actually banning the use of red pens for marking a student's papers because it would "make them feel bad" and it is a violent color that threatens the poor little mushlike minds! AGGGHHH

"That is helpful information. If you want to learn about the history and development of mathematics, you might find Howard Eves' "History of Mathematics" to be a useful read. The technical level is NOT demanding (the book is often used as a college text for people majoring in education and planning on being qualified to teach junior high or high school mathematics)."

Adam

Adam -

The endorsement was mine. I am quite familiar with the book (though not from a recent read of it), having worked through it back circa 1972 or 1973 as I was pursuing my bachelor's degree in math (I later earned a PhD in Statistics in 1978.). The statement about education majors indicates the technical level of the material.

Your statement about "people in education are banning" is interesting. Can you qualify it? As in - do you mean SOME people majoring in education? Many? Are their professors endorsing this, or is it just the students who are majoring in education? Please provide some sort of source on this so we can understand the context and prevalence.

Bill P (Alfonso) - who certainly doesn't mind letting students at any level - including senior executives in Executive MBA programs - know when they have misunderstood or made mistakes. It's part of our job!

[Selene]

Bill:

This link is from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...POE=click-refer

My client and friend who teaches at Forest Hills High School in NYC one of the "best schools", is also a professional photographer and a licensed psychoanalyst has told me that this movement away from red is deeply rooted in the system.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill:

This link is from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...POE=click-refer

My client and friend who teaches at Forest Hills High School in NYC one of the "best schools", is also a professional photographer and a licensed psychoanalyst has told me that this movement away from red is deeply rooted in the system.

Adam

I'd still be interested in seeing evidence of how widespread/deeply rooted it is. I don't see strong evidence of such trends in graduate education (and though I've been in the professorial ranks since 1978 other than a 4 year sojourn working fulltime in industry, I've taught a total of only 2 undergraduate courses since 1983, so my experience in undergraduate or lower levels is not personal).

Bill P (Alfonso)