post worst nobel prize winners for lit

[Anonymous No.17229446]

pic related

[Anonymous No.17229472]

>>17229446
we should exhume his rotted corpse and smear it with shit before we set it on fire and use it for a vile cook-out with expired, BBW burger meat

[Anonymous No.17229476]

>>17229446
I don't know if she's the worst, but nothing about her poetry is particularly amazing to me. She's a pretty good poet and has some nice lines, but I have no idea what led to it being nobel worthy aside from championing the feminist agenda, I suppose

[Anonymous No.17229536]

>>17229476
Wouldn't mind getting some glück glück from her, though

[Anonymous No.17229840]

>>17229476
t. pleb who's only heard of her at all because of the nobel

[Anonymous No.17231011]

>>17229446
Bob Dylan

[Anonymous No.17231316]

There is really only one answer

[Anonymous No.17231323]

>>17229446
>>17229472
The fact that Russel causes so much seethe among the scum of 4chan makes me love him immensely and I haven't even read him.

[Anonymous No.17231333]

>>17231323
but dood he's da r*ddit philosopher xD

[Anonymous No.17232574]

>>17231323
You belong to the "scum" just posting here. Except you're even worse from the fact you have a positive opinion of Bertrand Reddit, midwit extraordinaire.

[Anonymous No.17232604]

>>17231323
I fell for the meme of bertrand russell and bought two of his books. I suffered through 350 pages of his fucking bullshit and i often brood over the fact that i will never get that time back

[Anonymous No.17232631]

>>17231323
Russell is great when he’s not writing about ethics, politics, or the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17232667]

not lit, but, still...

[Anonymous No.17232908]

>>17229446
You even dont fucking know who is she, do you?

[Anonymous No.17232921]

>>17232667
did literally nothing but restore a fake sense of "confidence" in american governance

[Anonymous No.17232942]

>>17231316
>>17229446
we should never have discovered England

[Anonymous No.17232954]

>>17232908
I'm Russian and I do

[Anonymous No.17232959]

The turd in my anus

[Anonymous No.17232969]

>>17232667
Obama holds two records
Being the first black president of the US
Being the first holder of a Nobel peace prize to kill another holder of a Nobel peace prize

[Anonymous No.17233067]

>>17231011
This. Does the Nobel even matter anymore? It's a joke in Physics too.

[Anonymous No.17233148]

>>17232631
...or metaphysics, mathematics, esthetics, or epistemology.

[Anonymous No.17233237]

>>17233067
The Nobel selection was never good but it served as an occasion to talk about hose fields in the mainstream media before the internet.

[Anonymous No.17233942]

>>17229472
>>17232574
>>17232604
>>17232942
>>17233148
>t. /lit/ psueds who haven't engaged with his foundations of mathematics, his logicism, his philosophy of mathematics, or anything he did which was remotely /sci/
This >>17231333 but unironically is what happens when you rely on /lit/ memes to form an opinion of someone instead of actually reading them.

[Anonymous No.17233996]

>>17229476
What you're describing is enough to be nobel worthy though. There is no clear standard of quality for the Nobel, being relevant, having an "ideal", being prominent or recognized enough and being different from previous laureates are all factors that makes a writer nobel worthy.

[Anonymous No.17234018]

>>17233996
JK Rowling and John Green both fulfill these criteria, why aren't they on the list?

[Anonymous No.17234021]

>>17233942
Describe his philosophy of mathematics in 5000 characters or less. If you do it within an hour I'll read it.

[Anonymous No.17234028]

>>17233067
>It's a joke in Physics too
Could you expand on this?
I know lit and Econ are a total sham but wouldn't picking a bad candidate for physics be quite difficult since the stuff can be empirically verified?

[Anonymous No.17234046]

It's not even close.

[Anonymous No.17234092]

>>17234018
I said all those were factors, not that they were the only factors.
Glück does poetry, she belongs to a "literary" crowd. As with many things defining the crowd explicitly is much harder than knowing a member of the crowd when you see one. Some key characteristics are writing skill, formal innovation, seriousness of intent and tone, learned (if not scholarly) target audience, relative independence of opinion, lack of visible market value. Most of those don't apply to either Rowling or Green.

To sum up, become prominent (of possible historically significant, even if you just end up being the representative of one generation) in that literary crowd and your chances of getting a nobel jump up, compared to other writers.
Have something that can be called an ideal to satisfy the requirements of the Nobel foundation.
Be lucky enough to be of a demographic (age, gender, nationality...), have the political opinions and write in a genre that are currently popular or in need of being rewarded by the Nobel during your lifetime (so it's a tricky balance of being in vogue and being neglected by previous Nobel picks, and it changes over time).

Have the right connections or be the kind of writer that is read by the people who have the right connections. The internal politics of the literary world have perhaps more importance than anything else when it comes to getting the Nobel. It's really decided in small circles. But failing that, all of the above give you a good idea of what it takes to be Nobel worthy. As you see you have to be more than competent at writing (no shit) but you don't need Flaubert-tier prose or Blake-tier verses.

[Anonymous No.17234113]

>>17233942
Even in this restricted and supposedly serious discipline Russel was responsible for
>prescriptivism (retardation, fortunately discredited now)
>a retarded theory of substitution (same)
>spreading the ignorance of the importance of predication (btfo by based Godel in 1944)
>sidetracking Whitehead's ultimately failing but commendable project with stupid bullshit like the axiom of reducibility (ho no no no no), so we never got Whitehead's mereology and geometry because he was tired of the topic after Russel
>shilling for the most stupid form of "logicism" (once again faced the wall) that based Frege had told him to abandon
>a revival of realist pseud philosophy, which aside from being laughable, alienated all real mathematicians (and was btfo by more competent philosophers)
>completely misreading the practice of mathematicians, which led to a further divorce with so called "analytic" philosophers (see his controversy with Poincare)
>shilling the stupid notion that impredicative definitions are at fault for paradoxes (by the way this makes real analysis impossible)
Engaging with Russel's mathematic logic is exactly how I came to dislike him. The cuck ethics (literally my-wifes-son) is just icing on the cake. He wouldn't be notable for it alone as there is no shortage of cucks.

[Anonymous No.17234128]

>>17232908
she’s unironically good

[Anonymous No.17234163]

>>17232969
Kek, who was it?

[Anonymous No.17234244]

>>17231011
Came here to see when this would come up. Further down than I expected

[Anonymous No.17234262]

>>17234163
He is wrong
Kissinger did it first
Obama bombed Doctors without borders even after they called him and told him it he was actually just hitting a hospital
Kissinger bombed a red cross hospital in Cambodia a few decades earlier

[Anonymous No.17234265]

>>17234021
His philosophy of mathematics held that all of mathematics could be reduced to a small set of logical axioms, that is, that mathematics could be reduced to pure logic. He famously showed this in his Principia Mathematica though Gödel showed that a consistent mathematical system couldn't be reduced to a finite set of logical axioms.
Frege also worked on logicising mathematics and most of his early work is comparable with Russell's early work but it was Russell who raised a number of paradoxes which their naïve set theories could not handle and it was he who proposed a "theory of types" which would avoid these paradoxes. A famous example of type-theory formulation of logic is Alonzo Church's Lambda Calculus which also, incidentally, was shown to be equivalent to a Turing Machine.
I don't know what this is meant to prove but here you go faggot.

[Anonymous No.17234270]

>>17234028
Not the other anon but to me it's less about memes like Krugman or Obama, and more about the extremely strange selection. Past 1950, the list of laureates in physics is just as filled with literally whos as the literature prize.
There is also a lot of (open) bias in the selection. There is a blackout against too purely mathematical works even when it completely transformed a field. In addition, some sub-fields are notably overhyped compared to others.
To give specific examples, cosmology (in spite of being 100% useless and under less scrutiny) is exalted. Meanwhile the rapid beginning of the fields of solid state physics (and the resulting electronics) only led to one prize, even though it changed the world and is incredibly complex. They then tried to compensate by recently awarding the creator of the blue LED. A nice achievement for sure, but it comes off as bizarre when heavyweight of the field died without being ever nominated.

[Anonymous No.17234456]

>>17234265
Not him, but as STEMfag this seems quite interesting to me. His takes on math seems intriguing. However, I am more interested to learn about his Ideas on ethics,morality and his "atheism". I never read him but if I had to make a guess his takes on those topics is the reason people here treat him as redditor.

[Anonymous No.17234508]

>>17234113
Not that anon but:

>prescriptivism (retardation, fortunately discredited now)
Russell was more of a descriptivist actually, and if you approach anything logically descriptivism is the only thing that makes sense.

>a retarded theory of substitution (same)
I don't know how his theory of substitution is retarded, it seems logical to me, explain.

>spreading the ignorance of the importance of predication (btfo by based Godel in 1944)
I actually don't know what you are referencing. How was predicativity btfo? It's a basic concept which everyone relies on.

>sidetracking Whitehead's ultimately failing but commendable project with stupid bullshit like the axiom of reducibility (ho no no no no), so we never got Whitehead's mereology and geometry because he was tired of the topic after Russel
Whitehead is literally a legend because of PM, his other work is of secondary interest.

>shilling for the most stupid form of "logicism" (once again faced the wall) that based Frege had told him to abandon
Russell literally BTFO Frege by asking a question, he had to answer it himself and by doing so, literally raised logicism to a higher plane.

>a revival of realist pseud philosophy, which aside from being laughable, alienated all real mathematicians (and was btfo by more competent philosophers)
>t. idealist schizo

>completely misreading the practice of mathematicians, which led to a further divorce with so called "analytic" philosophers (see his controversy with Poincare)
Poincaré might have been a genius but he unfortunately suffered from a tendency to discredit work done by the newer generation of mathematicians in a Wildburger-tier fashion.

>shilling the stupid notion that impredicative definitions are at fault for paradoxes (by the way this makes real analysis impossible)
How? Impredicativity breads paradoxes and his famous paradox proves this lol.

[Anonymous No.17234589]

>>17234265
Thanks, although if anything this shows how limited Russel's vision is. Mathematicians make axioms and choose them based on what interests them, there's a kind of duality between axioms and objects of interests (some are interested in axioms and study the consequences generated by those axioms, others prefer studying objects and structures and will choose the axioms that best allow to talk about them, in both cases it's important to be aware that certains axioms determine certains structures and vice-versa). In particular there is no single set of axioms that can sum up all of mathematics, that's just a matter of mathematical practice, although I guess Russell is part of the history that allowed the mathematical communities to realize that.

I'm aware of Russell's paradoxes, but I always had trouble understanding how surprising they could be, since they are just a more precise analogue to the literally ancient 'liar's paradox'. Did Frege et Russell really believe writing things explicitly would allow them to escape such fundamental issues?
As for his theory of types, how much does lambda-calculus actually borrows from it? Iirc Church developed his own independently (and Turing worked independently of Russell too).

Overall Russell's legacy in logic and mathematics doesn't seem that impressive especially comparing it to that of his contemporaries.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem (if that is the work of Gödel you're referring to) is more specific than what you describe, but it's true that it dealt a serious blow to the more committed formalists of his time.

[Anonymous No.17234634]

>>17234508
>Whitehead is literally a legend because of PM, his other work is of secondary interest.
PM is really a meme, nobody reads it, and Whitehead moved on later. The work itself is a historical curiosity at best.

>Russell literally BTFO Frege by asking a question, he had to answer it himself and by doing so, literally raised logicism to a higher plane.
He btfo himself as much as he did frege, and by noticing rather commonplace (ie discussed since antiquity) paradoxes in Frege's formal construction.

>Poincaré might have been a genius
Without even discussing talent, there's a difference between understanding mathematical practice and not understanding it. Poincaré being a professional mathematician did, Russell apparently did not.

>How? Impredicativity breads paradoxes and his famous paradox proves this lol.
Not all paradoxes spring from impredicativity, not all impredicative statements lead to paradoxes (as Ramsay, Poincaré and Weyl noticed).

[Anonymous No.17234725]

>>17234508
Read Godel's paper named On Russel's mathematical logic.
>I actually don't know what you are referencing.
I am referencing how judgement are analyzed and even come to be. Russel completely broke (for non-reasons) with the traditions of Descartes, Leibniz, Brentano, Husserl, etc. Led to the collapse of the Grande Logique in his work.
>Whitehead is literally a legend because of PM, his other work is of secondary interest.
I won't insult your intelligence by pretending you actually mean this. But even in the PM, Whitehead had somewhat differing views, and it led to him abandoning what would have been the most interesting part.
>Russell literally BTFO Frege by asking a question
Frege was "btfo" in a very particular question (on which Russel held the same position for q while), and moved in an entirely different direction after. I mentioned him for revealing how even the more serious writer that went for this position had already moved on, even before the particular form they attempted was formally discredited.
>t. idealist schizo
Read the entirety of philosophy (not "analytic" of course). Start with the Greeks. Especially read Bolzano.
>unfortunately suffered from a tendency to discredit work done by the newer generation of mathematicians
Poincare was very friendly to many mathematicians his youngers. This has no relevance to his fight with Russel, which ranged from misunderstanding common practices of mathematicians (Russel isn't one as you imply) to misreading both Leibniz and Kant.
>Impredicativity breads paradoxes and his famous paradox proves this lol.
Once again read Godel's paper which isn't long. Impredicativity is neither a sufficient nor necessary attribute of paradoxes. It proves you are entirely ignorant of the criticism of your idol. It is also running contrary to the entire direction of mathematics since calculus has been discovered. Only non-mathematicians could ever entertain these propositions.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17234742]

>>17234508
only the absolute dumbest imbecilic cretins regurgitate "schizo" like it's supposed to be an insult. hang yourself subhuman.

[Anonymous No.17234791]

>>17232908
I thought the tschernobyl book was really good

[Anonymous No.17234847]

>>17234046
brainlet

[Anonymous No.17234918]

>>17229446
Krugman and Gorbachev come to mind first, although Obama is uper there too

[Anonymous No.17234927]

>>17234046
>>17234918
>winners for lit

[Anonymous No.17235041]

>>17229446
Him, the women and minorities and Pareto

[Anonymous No.17235053]

>>17234742
>t. retarded schizo tranny
In view of statistics, I'm surprised you haven't hanged yourself yet but you're probably too retarded for the basic self-reflection necessary for that action and even if you wanted to you are probably too retarded to even know how too, sad really.

[Anonymous No.17235094]

>>17234508
>Whitehead is literally a legend because of PM

[Anonymous No.17235126]

>>17229536
based

[Anonymous No.17235360]

>>17234634
>>17234725
I'm not going to go after everyting you guys said but here are some main points where I will:
PM is not a meme, it is self-evidently significant. Gödel's criticisms of it are made sympathetically not polemically as you anons are trying to imply. It should also be noted that Logic Theorist, the first AI, was literally built to prove some the theorems in PM, which it did.

Poincaré discreted Peano and Cantor, two people whose ideas are now widely accepted in the norm in mathematics. It's very obvious that he wasn't as friendly to this new kind of mathematics, as say, Hilbert was.

Obviously, inpredicativity is neither sufficient nor necessary for paradoxes to happen but the exceptions to the vicious circle principle are subtle when they exist and on the whole don't disprove the rule.

>>17235094
faggot

[Anonymous No.17235949]

>>17234046
Are there any econfags here that can tell me if Krugman is actually worthwhile or if he's just a meme?
It's really hard for me to establish what's scientific in economics and what's pure, sociology-tier, larp.

[Anonymous No.17236071]

>>17235360
>Poincaré discreted Peano and Cantor
Poincaré merely disagreed with them. Philosophical disagreement between professional of the same field are a natural feature of intellectual discourse, the issue here is that Russell wasn't competent to comment on mathematics as a professional field.

>PM is not a meme, it is self-evidently significant.
Calling it a meme was too harsh, it's historically significant but not in use anymore, and hasn't ever really been. Like most of Russell's work, its merit is to have been there at an important short-lived moment of expansion for modern logic, but it became outdated very soon.
>Gödel's criticisms of it are made sympathetically not polemically
The tone of his criticism has no bearing on what they say about the value of the criticized work, Gödel might have just been polite.
> Logic Theorist, the first AI, was literally built to prove some the theorems in PM, which it did.
One of those theorem is 1+1=2, I'm not sure this proves anything apart from the fact that PM was an early document with some relatively simple propositions on the one hand, and some questionable and philosophically loaded ones on the other hand, which made it a good target for a first try.
Also mind that there is no such thing as AI currently. Logic theorist is an automated theorem prover, that's a much more specific thing.

>but the exceptions to the vicious circle principle are subtle when they exist
Impredicative proposition over finite set are mostly non-problematic, there is nothing subtle about it. There are also axiomatizations of set theory without the fondation axiom (the one that forbids impredicativity in set definition).

[Anonymous No.17236152]

>>17235360
>self-evidently significant
No one cares anymore but a few old people in secluded departments of Anglo academia. You could go through a philosophy of science course in France or Germany with at most a ceremonial historical reference.
>Gödel's criticisms of it are made sympathetically not polemically
This would have no impact on their effectiveness. It is also false. He got progressively annoyed with the guy. besides, this is comical after you described Russel having "btfo" Frege when he couldn't stop sucking his dick.

[Anonymous No.17236162]

>>17229446
Why do people here hate Russell again?

[Anonymous No.17236244]

>>17236162
/lit/ commies hate him because he was an aristocrat anglo liberal who heavily criticised USSR

[Anonymous No.17236656]

>>17236071
Why do you think Russell wasn't competent to comment on Mathematics? Was it because he was a Logician and Philosopher rather than a professional mathematician?
You seem to imply this but that's ridiculous because:
1. Russell was ranked 7th wrangler in the Tripos so he wasn't clueless about mathematics and he was close friends with professional mathematicians like G.H. Hardy, Littlewood, etc.
2. It's not like he was a complete charlatan who made wild claims that jumped the shark, much of his work is still relevant today and is not just "historically significant".
Your need to characterize Russell as a hack who talked about things he didn't fully understand is unjustified and ahistorical.
Indeed, the characterization becomes incoherent when you take a moment to consider the fact that he managed to influence generations of geniuses like Gödel, Von Neumann, Quine, and pic rel (who has a pretty interesting story).
He was literally one of the architects of our modern foundations of mathematics, his degeneracy, reddit-tier moral philosophies, and /lit/ memes won't change that.

Also, non-well-founded set theories are kind of a meme, ZFC is pretty much the only system that any professional mathematician uses and it has the foundation axiom, heck even the Neumann-Bernays-Gödel axioms use a foundation axiom. I should also point out that even Poincaré endorced the vicious circle principle along with pretty much every other mathematician.

I forgot to mention that from what I've heard (not a Computer Scientist lol) his type theory is also pretty influential in Comp. Sci. (I did some programming when I was younger, I think it has something to do with compilers)

[Anonymous No.17236717]

>>17236162
This >>17236244
but also the slightly more /sci/ency people who hate him are often arrogant undergrads who feel a need to discredit him because of memes despite the fact that his work permeates modern mathematics' foundation as well as a lot of other disciplines like Logic, Language, and Computer Science.
It's like when commies tweet out "death to capitalism" on their iPhones while sipping a Starbucks s o y latte.

[Anonymous No.17236751]

>>17236656
>Your need to characterize Russell as a hack who talked about things he didn't fully understand is unjustified and ahistorical.
It's perfectly justified when it comes to his claim about the history of philosophy, see, his book on the history of philosophy.
Regarding his work on logic I actually softened my stance in the post you're quoting, he's not a complete hack but it's true that his work became dated quick, that some of his most important intuitions were misleading, that his contribution to the field was mostly historical and symbolic (in the sense that it popularized the field in its early years) especially compared to that of his most prominent contemporaries. This is more or less what I was saying in my post here >>17236071
with less emphasis on the popularization aspect.

>Russell was ranked 7th wrangler in the Tripos so he wasn't clueless about mathematics and he was close friends with professional mathematicians like G.H. Hardy, Littlewood, etc.
Yet his conception of mathematics (as you described earlier in the thread) seems to fly in the face of how and why mathematicians do mathematics. I understand that some mathematicians might have been caught up in the hype when it started. But eventually they moved on and kept producing valuable mathematical work. I don't see that being much the case for Russell.

> much of his work is still relevant today and is not just "historically significant"
Which ones? You mentioned his theory of types below but that seems rather uncertain.

>Also, non-well-founded set theories are kind of a meme, ZFC is pretty much the only system that any professional mathematician uses
Not really, most mathematicians don't really need axiomatic systems in their daily practice, and those who do are happy to experiment with other systems. This is also irrelevant to the question of whether impredicative statements are the only (or even main) source or paradoxes. Impredicative finite statements are fine, it is possible to create entire axiomatic systems without excluding impredicative statements at all, you still encounter paradoxes in systems with no impredicative statements, I think that is enough to tell that impredicative statements are not necessarily paradoxical, and that paradoxes are not necessarily of impredicative origin.

> I should also point out that even Poincaré endorced the vicious circle principle along with pretty much every other mathematician.
He was also one of the first to point out that it wasn't always a problem. Zermelo and Ramsey pointed out important examples of why it isn't even always a problem in the infinite case.

>I forgot to mention that from what I've heard (not a Computer Scientist lol) his type theory is also pretty influential in Comp. Sci.
Haven't heard of it but I'm not much of a computer scientist and have rarely discussed this with friends who are. Would be curious to know if that's the case.

[Anonymous No.17236775]

>>17236656
>He was literally one of the architects of our modern foundations of mathematics
I feel calling him one of the architect is a stretch. He played a role early on, but upon examination, again, I don't find his role to have been that significant compared to Church, Turing, Tarski, Gödel, Frege, etc. He did talk with them (well mostly Frege and to some extent Gödel it seems) but out of all those he seems by far to have been the most disminished in posterity.

>he managed to influence generations of geniuses like Gödel, Von Neumann, Quine, and pic rel (who has a pretty interesting story).
Yes Pitts story is fascinating (and extremely sad). I hadn't heard of Russell influencing him however, what was his influence? Same for Von Neumann, for Gödel they did have exchanges but it seems the influence flowed mostly (though not exclusively) in one direction.

[Anonymous No.17237147]

Fuck me, I deleted my last response by mistake, I'll keep this short.
>>17236751
>It's perfectly justified when it comes to his claim about the history of philosophy, see, his book on the history of philosophy.
I actually agree with you in this respect, his work is entertaining but I wouldn't rely on it. Personally, I prefer Will Durante and Eric Temple Bell.
>Yet his conception of mathematics (as you described earlier in the thread) seems to fly in the face of how and why mathematicians do mathematics.
Oh? how is this? Do you mind explaining?
>Not really, most mathematicians don't really need axiomatic systems in their daily practice, and those who do are happy to experiment with other systems.
This is largely true but ZFC is nonetheless, the "standard model" of mathematics and it, esp. the axiom schema of specification is due to Russell's paradox.
Admittedly, I don't know much about these non-well-founded set theories but the vicious circle principle, foundational axiom, and Russell's paradox seem largely valid to me. I was aware of some of the short comings but I guess I'll have to study this topic further.
>Haven't heard of it but I'm not much of a computer scientist and have rarely discussed this with friends who are. Would be curious to know if that's the case.
Hey, you don't have to trust what I say! You should research it, it's kind of interesting; I just don't happen to know a lot about it.

>>17236775
Influence might have been to strong of a word.
For example, a mathematician who reads Euclid when he is young can still be influenced by him even if he doesn't work on compass and straightedge constructions for his career. Russell's influence on the aforementioned men is greater still though because he was actually there to correspond with them and in, for example, Wittgenstein's case, lecture them.
I will add that I think statements such as "Euclid is ancient and irrelevant" are mostly unwise. Mathematical works are, insofar as they are true, immortal and are almost eternally relevant because mathematics tends to build upon itself to arrive at new truths, regardless of how simple, abstract, or seemingly "relevant" the propositions it builds itself upon are.

[Anonymous No.17237156]

>>17237147
>I'll keep this short.
lol, I forgot about this.

[Anonymous No.17237316]

Bob Dylan for literature is the worst by far. BY FAR.

[Anonymous No.17237363]

>>17237316
True, which is unfortunate because I actually love Bob Dylan. He just had no business winning the Nobel since he has contributed absolutely nothing to literature

[Anonymous No.17237387]

>>17234262
The fact that kissinger has a peace prize is the sole disqualifier for any merit to be attached to the nobble or its committee. A close second: Borges, the most original writer, and greatest reader, of the 20c, being snubbed

[Anonymous No.17237786]

>>17237147
>Mathematical works are, insofar as they are true, immortal
That's precisely what brings Russel down (in that domain, he was a regular charlatan in the rest of his writings). He was an important actor in discussions at an interesting times but never got the last word. Virtually all of his own development were either false or misguided as, to be fair, he recognized most of the time. Russel has on infamous quote about how he wouldn't risk anything for his ideas because he might be wrong. I've seen it cited on /lit/ as the peak of the Anglo bugman attitude, but the guy had simply been wrong too many times and was tired of it. That's also why he abandoned the field past 1925 (even more after 1930) and never returned in the several decades he still had to live.
In that sense he had a tangential and ungrateful role in history. He was the character constantly opposing Socrates in the dialogues of Plato, and leaving at the end with nothing but skepticism.

>>17236751
The theory of types you can encounter in computer science has little to do with the ramified theory of types of Russel. His point was the ramification, which is rejected today. It should be noted though that Russel himself entirely abandoned this theory in the 1920s, and never went back to it.
It was later, through the work of Ramsey, Tarski and others, that the "simple" theory of types emerged. It reached its mature form in Church's simply-typed lambda calculus. This theory was going against Russel's previous one (in particular, and related to the rest of the thread, it rejected the vicious circles principle).
>Not really, most mathematicians don't really need axiomatic systems in their daily practice, and those who do are happy to experiment with other systems.
Anyone treating ZFC as the inescapable gospel hasn't met people in the field. 95%+ of mathematicians don't care about it at all. Many of the others are trying to shill their pet systems, and that's not counting the topos fanatics. The conventional status of ZFC is due to the fact it's easier to explain in ten minutes.

[Anonymous No.17237790]

>>17237316
I can't get over how fucking stupid of a decision that was. Even Leonard Cohen would have been better.

[Anonymous No.17238460]

>>17229536
basudo

[Anonymous No.17238599]

>>17231011
Yes. Why not create a category for music? Why not just do that?