Comments on: "The best thing out there" http://www.logicmatters.net/2007/12/the-best-thing-out-there/ Logic, enthusiasms, sceptical thoughts, and a little LaTeX geekery Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:23:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Ocham http://www.logicmatters.net/2007/12/the-best-thing-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Ocham Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:33:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=212#comment-165 PS the link above does work. And this<br/><br/>http://wordpress.com/tag/crackpots<br/><br/>is also good value. PS the link above does work. And this

http://wordpress.com/tag/crackpots

is also good value.

]]> By: Ocham http://www.logicmatters.net/2007/12/the-best-thing-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Ocham Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:30:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=212#comment-164 HNY Peter. <br/><br/>I was puzzled by the comments of My Rykamp, but a visit here<br/><br/>http://skullsinthestars.com/2007/12/14/relativity-denialists-like-the-heads-of-the-hydra<br/><br/>explained things. (Since your wretched blogger will probably cut off the links, you can also find it by Googling<br/><br/>"Relativity Denialists Like the Heads of the Hydra"<br/><br/>which is good value. HNY Peter.

I was puzzled by the comments of My Rykamp, but a visit here

http://skullsinthestars.com/2007/12/14/relativity-denialists-like-the-heads-of-the-hydra

explained things. (Since your wretched blogger will probably cut off the links, you can also find it by Googling

“Relativity Denialists Like the Heads of the Hydra”

which is good value.

]]> By: Peter Smith http://www.logicmatters.net/2007/12/the-best-thing-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-163 Peter Smith Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:48:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=212#comment-163 Gosh. Gödel inept, eh? I so wish I was that inept ... Gosh. Gödel inept, eh? I so wish I was that inept …

]]> By: John Ryskamp http://www.logicmatters.net/2007/12/the-best-thing-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-162 John Ryskamp Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:41:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=212#comment-162 Good heavens, what an idiotic book. You don't mention Garciadiego's book on Russell even once. You ignore Ferreiros' work on Cantor.<br/><br/>And you're are still stupid enough to refer to the Liar paradox and Russell's paradox as if these are paradoxes!<br/><br/>You should quit your job. You are incompetent to write about Godel until you understand natural mathematics and its role in set theory. What a clown!<br/><br/>Indeed, we know enough now about Godel's ineptness, bad scholarship, ambition and general duplicity, to be able to say that those who argue that there is logical content in Godel's theorems, are not only arguing against the logic, but are also arguing in bad faith. Dreadful.<br/><br/>You are a self-satisfied, pompous old ass.<br/><br/><br/>Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085 Good heavens, what an idiotic book. You don’t mention Garciadiego’s book on Russell even once. You ignore Ferreiros’ work on Cantor.

And you’re are still stupid enough to refer to the Liar paradox and Russell’s paradox as if these are paradoxes!

You should quit your job. You are incompetent to write about Godel until you understand natural mathematics and its role in set theory. What a clown!

Indeed, we know enough now about Godel’s ineptness, bad scholarship, ambition and general duplicity, to be able to say that those who argue that there is logical content in Godel’s theorems, are not only arguing against the logic, but are also arguing in bad faith. Dreadful.

You are a self-satisfied, pompous old ass.

Ryskamp, John Henry, “Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas” (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085

]]>