Saul Kripke?

[TobiasNoel !zAE.1Pcf.A No.9258829]

What does /sci/ think about the logician Saul Kripke. I liked his work on Mathematical Logic. Then, I watched him talk about Number Theory and Abstract Algebra. He was quite wrong.

Now, I want to entirely abandon learning about his work. It seems like there is a problem with modern mathematicians giving too much credit to Gödel, and not enough credit to Grothendieck.

Discuss.

[Anonymous No.9258871]

Don't idealize mathematicians, look at the work produced. Whatever Kripke said about number theory or algebra doesn't minimize his contributions to logic, specifically set theory and modal logic. Don't know anything about his philosophical work.

[Anonymous No.9258872]

>>9258871
idolize*

[Anonymous No.9258874]

>>9258829
You watched him talk? How???? His voice is incredibly annoying.

[TobiasNoel !zAE.1Pcf.A No.9258911]

>>9258871
His errors in set theory matter for abstract algebra.

I don't want to idolize anyone (except myself), I just want to make sure that I only read consistent material.

>>9258872
Ironically apt malapropism.

>>9258874
He sounds like a nervous nerd trying to fit in with the popular kids. Maybe that's why he made the mistake.

I do not find his voice to be very annoying. In that lecture, he sometimes slips into a less nasal register for a single phrase like: "someone whom we think is a spy."

[Anonymous No.9259219]

I like the Kripke-Joyal semantics.

[TobiasNoel !zAE.1Pcf.A No.9259811]

>>9259219
>Kripke-Joyal semantics
Thank you, I wanted to see which of his efforts were redeeming.

[Anonymous No.9259818]

>It seems like there is a problem with modern mathematicians giving too much credit to Gödel, and not enough credit to Grothendieck.
Neither is remotely the case. It's fine.

[TobiasNoel !zAE.1Pcf.A No.9259855]

>>9259818
That was the problem in the lecture, and I assumed he was catering content for the audience.