Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.logic > #255611

Re: Why is model theory needed?

Show all headers | View raw

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:44:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:19:34 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 2:38:07 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:32:13 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:21:48 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 8:29:33 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:41:01 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:28:14 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 8:27:01 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 8:57:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:56:39 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:27:18 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:09:57 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 8:26:39 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 8:33:01 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 8:29:48 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 2:37:54 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:39:33 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:58 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:42:53 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:33:14 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:31:35 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:27:56 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 1:31:40 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 1:30:52 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:37:43 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:07:15 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:00:05 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 8:31:45 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:34:51 PM UTC-7, Mild Shock wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I doubt you will write Shakespeare once via your nonsense: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "More Republican brain-rot. Just go to your neurologist and keep your hands off strangers, okay?" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, if we're touching, we're not strangers anymore. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You mean you criminally pursued someone, then 'feigned' you were friends?" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean reach out and punch someone? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Not based on 'blood libels', no. It's traditional advice, really." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Me thinks thouest stinks. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Do you think the Boston Marathon bomber looked like that guy in the news 'SBF', too?" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems a waste of ink - 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the sands of time it will sink. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know your kink - 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it just seems a fink. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or it was sometimes Francis Bacon, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most anything one need hear, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it was Roger that was making. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Maybe stay in your depth, dude." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the Audience: With respect to Shakespeare, "...or maybe it was Roger Bacon" conventionally "indicates" they are lying about 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > publication details. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the point is that Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon are two different 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people, and that Roger had a lot already going on, and that sometimes 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the authorship of Shakespeare's works is questioned, about Francis. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's "famously" tantamount to an acknowledgment you're engaging in "publishing libel". 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your stupider-than-average version of it doesn't "improve the looking", either. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile: Yeah, people, I still "wrote all the words I wrote". 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So? Why should we believe you?" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because my photograph is on the book as the "author's photograph"? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Hmm. Plausible, actually. But don't quote me on that." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Scammers: "NOOOOOOOO!" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Knowledgeable: "Yeah, that's what that is. But you know what? You wouldn't want to live like him, etc." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, doesn't mention libel, or slander, maybe you should add it to the Wiki. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it's not so unbelievable that Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shared a printer, where Shakespeare was a well-known rude carouser, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Bacon one of the most reknowned heads, of the time. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Much of the learning with which he has been credited 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by critics in later years is exaggerated, and he may well 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have absorbed much learning from conversations." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Actually smart", so of course you don't know that. (Like in 80s movies, people.) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was once thought an actually plausible hypothesis that Francis Bacon had written 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the works of Shakespeare, based on the high esteem Bacon's natural philosophy 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was held in. But... and this is a very interesting point... Bacon was indeed a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viscount, and the language of Shakespeare is really -- no, it is -- plebeian, as 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this passage suggests. (So no, he wasn't Edward de Vere either.) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, "About Shakespeare..." telegraphs your IP fraud goals IRL. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe 'change the approach' next time. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, reading this Cohen's book on Victorian mathematics, it has long sections 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on Boole and De Morgan and their surrounds, for example De Morgan's anticipation 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of word frequency analysis, in terms of authors and their apocryphal output. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any mention of the similar works of "Joseph Carroll"? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They were kind of set against Comte, .... 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, the "select tid-bit". 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's no "super-secret" than when you are musing in your stupid fashion about Shakespeare, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are trying to screw an author out of recognition. It's "conventional wisdom" of the issue. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's talk about Spinoza, but just like Roger was way before Francis, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bacon, there was old Spinoza and his integer continuum, hundreds 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of years different. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Baruch Spinoza did not write the works of Shakespeare. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Gosh, that sounds a little anti-Semitic, sorry.) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, did David Hackett Fischer write them, then?" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, no. The works were 'attested', known, far before the American historian's day. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Maybe ChatGPT wrote the 'David Hackett Fischer' works, though. Ha, ha, kidding, but..." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well then, who showed up to give lectures under that name? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "For all I know, maybe it was you. But you have become tiresome with this." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Update: No, seriously, who is in the "David Hackett Fischer" YouTube videos? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, that's boring. Do another one of your 'guesses', though. 'Domenico Starnone'? Who is Domenico Starnone?" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, hey, like Lee Ranaldo in Sonic Youth? The 'No Star'?" 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lee was lying, though. Domenico isn't. 
> > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, but I think he is. Lying about Anita Raja, for example." 
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe not? 
> > > > > > > > > > "Maybe he lies about Andrzej Mostowski." 
> > > > > > > > > > Hmm. About Mostowski, really, and 'some random Italian novelist'... 
> > > > > > > > > > "Maybe he isn't, though." 
> > > > > > > > > > Now you're getting the idea. 
> > > > > > > > > "You know, Badiou's *On the Concept of Model* isn't really that well-informed..." 
> > > > > > > > > I could believe that. 
> > > > > > > > "I think he didn't really know what he was doing with *Theory of the Subject*." 
> > > > > > > > That's possible. 
> > > > > > > "I wonder what Jon Meacham thinks of Alain Badiou. Ha ha, no I don't." 
> > > > > > > It's sort-of-scarcely-thinkable it'd be an interesting question, yes. 
> > > > > > "Oh, I could imagine this. All you would do is ask Jon Meacham, who's literate, about the philosophy of Alain Badiou..." 
> > > > > > And not have them in a seated exchange? Maybe, perhaps that'd work. 
> > > > > "And then we could have John Wray, who's not literate, contribute as well." 
> > > > > I think I'm having you 'get ahead of yourself'. 
> > > > Book Fiend: "A novel about a Florida metal band? Really? Really?" 
> > > > Maybe it's an allegory of another similar band? 
> > > "So David Hackett Fischer, Alain Badiou, Jon Meacham, and John Wray walk into a bar..." 
> > > I don't drink at bars anymore, sorry. 
> > "But they're at the bar." 
> > I'm not litigious, either.
> "Don't you get the way the joke works?" 
> I was making another kind of joke, sorry.

No, I was!
"I don't believe you."
Maybe you're wrong?

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why is model theory needed? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:42 -0700
  Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:20 -0700
    Re: Why is model theory needed? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:39 -0700
      Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 14:37 -0700
        Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 08:29 -0700
          Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 08:32 -0700
            Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 08:26 -0700
              Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:09 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 08:27 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 13:56 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 08:57 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 08:26 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:28 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 08:40 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 08:29 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 14:21 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 11:32 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:38 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:19 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:44 -0700
                Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:40 -0700

csiph-web