From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!linac!uchinews!rabi.uchicago.edu!trivedi Thu Apr 30 15:22:42 EDT 1992
Article 5258 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:5258 sci.logic:1221
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!linac!uchinews!rabi.uchicago.edu!trivedi
>From: trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprasad
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.080028.26037@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago
References: <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1992Apr24.174440.11202@cs.wright.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 08:00:28 GMT
Lines: 48


In article <1992Apr24.174440.11202@cs.wright.edu> tkprasad@valhalla.wright.edu writes:

>I wanted to convey [...] that for a beginner, the books
>GODEL, ESCHER, BACH  and  GODEL'S PROOF are a good starting 
>point [...]  I do realize that after an informal understanding 
>of the underlying ideas, one needs the kind of rigorous proofs 
>given in the textbooks on FOL [...] In fact, I owe  a lot to 
>Enderton's book for whatever I know in logic. I do not 
>think I deserve the slanderous remarks from Michael Zeleny,
>for I did not mean to be disrespectful to anyone. 

You were only trying to advice someone on beginners' level reading
in this area: IMHO you gave very good advice. While someone else
should feel free to offer a differing advice, Mr Zeleny's attack on
you was most unjustified. It is very sad that an atmosphere was
created in which you feel a need to explain and justify a helpful act.

I would also like to most strongly state that, contrary to what Mr Zeleny
later tried to insinuate, characterizing books and proofs as difficult 
or unsuitable for beginners is NOT an insult to anyone.

I personally feel that Goedel's own proofs are "gory" [I have read them,
at least tried to]. I personally feel that unless you have very specific
reasons for wading through Russel and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica",
you could skip the experience. I personally would not recommend that
someone wanting to learn calculus should start with Newton's original
writings; nor is his "Principia" the best textbook for a first course
in mechanics. For a student, others have presented General Relativity
better than do Einstein's own writings. Hilbert's axiomatization of 
geometry is not for those who are starting out in the subject. Ditto for
von Neumann's book on quantum mechanics. I think Feynman's "Lectures on
Physics" are beautiful; his "Photon-Hadron Interaction" sucks. Beginners
should avoid most of Schwinger's books. Etc....

I hope that no reader of these words finds them "insulting" to Goedel,
Russel, Whitehead, Newton, Einstein, Hilbert, von Neumann, Feynman, 
or Schwinger.
Opinions and choices are the stuff of which intellectual lives are made.

****************************************************************************
It may be difficult to pick up the old thread now but I would like add
the following: 
Oxford University Press is coming out with a book on Goedel's theorems
by Smullyan any week now (so they say). I do EXPECT it to be very good,
but I have NOT seen it.
****************************************************************************
-----


