How can one man get BTFOd so hard?

[Anonymous No.8795844]

[Anonymous No.8795901]

Often happens when he acquired a pure ideology.

[Anonymous No.8795905]

Oh wait, lol, you probably mean the Russel paradox thing.
For some reason, even if I'm deep into set theory, I thought you meant that episode where that other guy he respected him told him he's morally trash and should kill himself and he was totally destroyed and thought about it.

[Anonymous No.8795920]

He got BTFO a lot by dying.

[Anonymous No.8795955]

>>8795844
this is what happens when you let another man fuck your wife

[Anonymous No.8796027]

New in mathematics here, what Bertrand Russel did?

[Anonymous No.8796075]

im gonna need a quick rundown

[Anonymous No.8796154]

>>8796027
He wrote a really boring book and coined a paradox.

[Anonymous No.8796277]

>PM was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy,[1] being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable.

>However, in 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theorem proved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

[Anonymous No.8796294]

Principia Mathematica (Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell)
>Volume 1, 680 pages.
>Volume 2, 808 pages.
>Volume 3, 504 pages.

Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I. (Kurt Gödel)
>26 pages.

[Anonymous No.8796297]

[Anonymous No.8796300]

>JUST

[Anonymous No.8796310]

>>8796294
ITS NOT FAIR

[Anonymous No.8796313]

[Anonymous No.8796324]

>>8795901

fpbp desu

even pure relativism or skepticism is shit-tier, as paradoxical as it sounds

[Anonymous No.8796361]

>>8796294

[Anonymous No.8796398]

>>8796294
CRAWLING IN MY SKIN

[Anonymous No.8796403]

>>8796313
is this a meme or an actual proof? i honestly can't tell

[Anonymous No.8796419]

>>8796403
check >>8796297
for the actual proof

[Anonymous No.8796425]

>>8796294
how many people in the world do you think have actually read the Principia? Skimming through the pages doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.8796436]

>>8796277
>not mentioning that Pitts btfo Russell when he was 12 years old

[Anonymous No.8796437]

>>8796425
200?
It's not meant to be read, but people prob read it (or tried to) to find errors anyway

[Anonymous No.8796491]

>>8796425
>>8796437

I think that the "under a thousand" guess is probably reasonable. After all, we only include in this guess people who have read ALL THREE volumes, ALL THE WAY THROUGH. And the motivation to do something like this is greatly diminished for mathematicians when they know in a cursory way that the project was BTFO.

Still, the project has obvious importance in the history of math-we're talking about it, after all-and so there is a sheer curiosity to the thing. I actually hope to read it someday but I got stuck on a bit of Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy a while back and I haven't gone back at it.

I also seem to remember reading Gödel's paper and getting stuck on a bit about how his Gödel numbers are actually defined, like I inspected a few and they didn't seem to be what they were supposed to be, or something.

[Anonymous No.8796555]

>>8795905
More about this?

[Anonymous No.8796580]

>>8796555

it's something about how Russell was a pacifist and a passionate opponent of nuclear weapons. But he'd go so hard/edgy in his debates on same (or something like this) that an author of some note called him out for being "warlike, wanting to win at all costs" in his debates on the topic, which makes him a hypocrite or something.

The letter is rather scathing IIRC but I honestly don't think that the guy who wrote it has much of a valid point (from what I can remember). That type of thing is the "you're a hypocrite" sophistry which is commonly resorted to by humanities types.

[Anonymous No.8796709]

I feel genuinely sad for the guy:

>Both Whitehead and I were disappointed that Principia Mathematica was only viewed from a philosophical standpoint. People were interested in what was said about the contradictions and in the question whether ordinary mathematics had been validly deduced from purely logical premisses, but they were not interested in the mathematical techniques developed in the course of the work. ... Even those who were working on exactly the same subjects did not think it worth while to find out what Principia Mathematica had to say on them. I will give two illustrations: Mathematische Annalen published about ten years after the publication of Principia a long article giving some of the results which (unknown to the author) we had worked out in Part IV of our book. This article fell into certain inaccuracies which we had avoided, but contained nothing valid which we had not already published. The author was obviously totally unaware that he had been anticipated. The second example occurred when I was a colleague of Reichenbach at the University of California. He told me that he had invented an extension of mathematical induction which he called 'transfinite induction'. I told him that this subject was fully treated in the third volume of the Principia. When I saw him a week later, he told me that he had verified this. (1959, 86)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/

[Anonymous No.8796714]

>>8796709
>The first indication that something was seriously wrong appeared in Gödel's well known essay of 1944, “Russell's Mathematical Logic.” There, Gödel points out that line (3) of the demonstration of Russell's proposition *89.16 is an elementary logical blunder, while the crucial *89.12 also appears to be highly questionable. It still remained to be seen whether anything of Russell's proof could be salvaged, in spite of the errors, but John Myhill provided strong evidence of a negative verdict by providing a model-theoretic proof in 1974 that no such proof as Russell's can be given in the ramified theory of types without the axiom of reducibility. (Urquhart 2012)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/

[Anonymous No.8796743]

>“There was a footpath leading across fields to New Southgate, and I used to go there alone to watch the sunset and contemplate suicide. I did not, however, commit suicide, because I wished to know more of mathematics.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/348475-there-was-a-footpath-leading-across-fields-to-new-southgate

[Anonymous No.8796761]

>>8795844
Who's this?

[Anonymous No.8796780]

>>8796761
>Who's this?
Marx.

[Anonymous No.8796802]

>>8796761
Hitler, before he was denied entry in the art school

[Anonymous No.8796806]

>>8796761
ur mum

[Anonymous No.8796817]

>>8796743
Why did he want to kill himself what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.8796854]

>>8796817
>Why did he want to kill himself what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.8796875]

>>8796817
Imagine devoting all your time and effort to something that is ultimately useless. I'm sure you know that feeling so you should know why he wanted to kill him self

[Anonymous No.8796914]

>>8796277
Everybody regards Russell's and Whitehead's efforts though as the beginning of more formalized/rigorous mathematics and away from faulty intuition of the time. Their efforts also set the Lambda Calculus/Church-Turing thesis in motion.

[Anonymous No.8797215]

The irony is that Russell himself didn't really discover much interesting mathematics other than that paradox. He only got PM to work by fucking around with different axioms. He ended up having to assume something that made the whole type hierarchy pointless anyways.

[Anonymous No.8797258]

>>8796854

fug

[Anonymous No.8797265]

>>8796854
I HURT MYSELF TODAY.