Comments on: The Wisdom of Wikipedia http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/05/the-wisdom-of-wikipedia/ 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: Gregory Kohs http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/05/the-wisdom-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-568 Gregory Kohs Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:15:16 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=458#comment-568 There was clearly a mistake on Wikipedia when it read:<br /><br />-x is gray.<br /><br />Since this is Wikipedia, after all, I believe it was supposed to more correctly read:<br /><br />-x is ghey!!! LOLOLOLOLOL! Eat it, Josh!!!!!!!!! There was clearly a mistake on Wikipedia when it read:

-x is gray.

Since this is Wikipedia, after all, I believe it was supposed to more correctly read:

-x is ghey!!! LOLOLOLOLOL! Eat it, Josh!!!!!!!!!

]]> By: Ocham http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/05/the-wisdom-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-567 Ocham Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:18:23 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=458#comment-567 N.b. On the infinite regress objection Robert Bacon says "si in omni verbo differunt compositio et res verbi, contingit ire in infinitum in expositione huius verbi ‘est’, sic: ‘est’, idest: est ens, istud ‘est’ adhuc potest exponi per ‘est’, et illud, et sic in infinitum nisi stemus in primo."<br /><br />And Nicholas of Paris says "cum dicitur ‘homo est’, cum in omni enuntiatione oporteat esse quod dicitur de altero, et de quo dicitur, et medium per quod, manifestum est quod in hac non est aliud quod dicitur de altero quam participium sumptum ab hoc verbo ‘est’, ut sit sensus: ‘homo est’ idest: homo est ens; sed cum dicitur ‘homo est ens’, si hoc verbum ‘est’ sit eiusdem rationis cuius erat prius ergo poterit in suum participium resolvi, ut dicatur sic: homo est ens ens, et sic usque in infinitum; ergo cum non sit procedere in infinitum, manifestum quod alterius est rationis, cum est secundum adiacens, et cum est tertium. N.b. On the infinite regress objection Robert Bacon says "si in omni verbo differunt compositio et res verbi, contingit ire in infinitum in expositione huius verbi ‘est’, sic: ‘est’, idest: est ens, istud ‘est’ adhuc potest exponi per ‘est’, et illud, et sic in infinitum nisi stemus in primo."

And Nicholas of Paris says "cum dicitur ‘homo est’, cum in omni enuntiatione oporteat esse quod dicitur de altero, et de quo dicitur, et medium per quod, manifestum est quod in hac non est aliud quod dicitur de altero quam participium sumptum ab hoc verbo ‘est’, ut sit sensus: ‘homo est’ idest: homo est ens; sed cum dicitur ‘homo est ens’, si hoc verbum ‘est’ sit eiusdem rationis cuius erat prius ergo poterit in suum participium resolvi, ut dicatur sic: homo est ens ens, et sic usque in infinitum; ergo cum non sit procedere in infinitum, manifestum quod alterius est rationis, cum est secundum adiacens, et cum est tertium.

]]> By: Ocham http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/05/the-wisdom-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-566 Ocham Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:27:48 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=458#comment-566 I don't think this is right (or at least it is only right in a qualified sense).<br /><br />I comment here<br /><br />http://ocham.blogspot.com/2009/06/theory-of-descriptions-according-to.html I don't think this is right (or at least it is only right in a qualified sense).

I comment here

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2009/06/theory-of-descriptions-according-to.html

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/05/the-wisdom-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-565 Jonathan Fri, 29 May 2009 18:22:06 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=458#comment-565 I'm guessing you were referring to the page 'Definite description' rather than 'Theory of descriptions', which was even worse:<br /><br />-there is an x such that x is the Emperor of Germany.<br />-there is no y, other than x, such that y is the Emperor of Germany (i.e., x is uniquely the Emperor of Germany).<br />-x is gray.<br /><br />(the third part is particularly hilariously bad)<br /><br />I've fixed that one too. I’m guessing you were referring to the page ‘Definite description’ rather than ‘Theory of descriptions’, which was even worse:

-there is an x such that x is the Emperor of Germany.
-there is no y, other than x, such that y is the Emperor of Germany (i.e., x is uniquely the Emperor of Germany).
-x is gray.

(the third part is particularly hilariously bad)

I’ve fixed that one too.

]]>