|
If you see below there are other reports about the same in other places as well. I guess they are working on to fix it
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I had an interesting post; have been thinking about posting the thought at the CodeProject blog, or at least preserve the text.
The problem is that some Q&A forum answer posts are removed too early due to some abuse reports on the original question.
That was my fault not to preserve it. The post I'm interested in was here:
What is Android? A technology or an operating system?[^].
Even in Google cache, it is already in "closed" phase.
I wanted to retrieve the text of my own answer on this page, the only one on that page.
If such retrieval is problematic, please just let me know; then I'll write the content again.
Thank you very much.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sergey,
I also wanted to re-read that interesting reply of yours, and re-read my own attempt at surreal humor in my response to it: I'm sure you would want my comment for your keepsake book of treasured memories
I actually tried looking in the revisions for that message id, but it seems that when a thread is closed, the revisions store is kerblooied.
I've activated 'allow private e-mail replies' on this message, in case you find the content and are willing to send it to me.
yours, Bill
« I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief » Immanuel Kant
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Bill.
I just wanted to say that I appreciated your sharp reply very much:
BillWoodruff has posted a comment to the Answer "What is Android? A technology or an operating system?": It seems to me that the question: "is the infinity of the non-existence of verbal knowledge ordinally greater than the infinity of non-existence of written knowledge ?" … is the type of question the contemplation of which drove both Cantor and Gödel insane in remarkably similar ways I felt that this is a paraphrase of some known saying, but could not find the original source. Am I right? If so, do you have any references?
I think I know the background well enough. It probably refers the the crash of the "classical" Cantor's "naive set theory" by the Russel's paradox, as well as the revolutionary role of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
(So Bertrand Russell could probably examine his sanity, too )
After your post, I talked on Skype and discussed your post and my posts with my friend who originally gave me the idea of his maxim "There is no such thing as verbal knowledge" and used to repeatedly use it in arguments many years ago.
If my post is lost, I'll write the similar text and will let you know.
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sergey,
My whacko jape on the "ordinality of infinities" ("Aleph") was inspired primarily by an excellent small book about the lives of Cantor and Godel by Amir Aczel: "The Mystery of the Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for Infinity" [^]. Their remarkably similar insanities (in terms of ideation) did, indeed, correlate with their work in this mathematical subject area (which I do not have pretend to have a clue about).
But, "resonant," in my head, was the 1945 short-story of Jorge Borges, "The Aleph." An excerpt:
"I arrive now at the ineffable core of my story. And here begins my despair as a writer. All language is a set of symbols whose use among its speakers assumes a shared past. How, then, can I translate into words the limitless Aleph, which my floundering mind can scarcely encompass? Mystics, faced with the same problem, fall back on symbols: to signify the godhead, one Persian speaks of a bird that somehow is all birds; Alanus de Insulis, of a sphere whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere; Ezekiel, of a four-faced angel who at one and the same time moves east and west, north and south. (Not in vain do I recall these inconceivable analogies; they bear some relation to the Aleph.) Perhaps the gods might grant me a similar metaphor, but then this account would become contaminated by literature, by fiction. Really, what I want to do is impossible, for any listing of an endless series is doomed to be infinitesimal. In that single gigantic instant I saw millions of acts both delightful and awful; not one of them occupied the same point in space, without overlapping or transparency. What my eyes beheld was simultaneous, but what I shall now write down will be successive." ... downloadable .pdf of this story here: [^].
I believe I also quoted Nisaragadatta in my response to you: "Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. Between the two, my life flows."
One might imagine I was in some way influenced by Paulo Coelho's novel "The Aleph," but I was not: I consider Coelho a writer of pastel pseudo-mystical trash for new age air-heads
cheers, Bill
« I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief » Immanuel Kant
modified 25-Sep-14 13:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent, thank you for the good reading. But I'm still unaware where your "driving both Cantor and Gödel insane in remarkably similar ways" comes from. If this is your original idea, please tell me. Is that just inspired by the fact that those names were mentioned in the referenced book in related context?
Now, as to the Cantor's work… As to the infinite sets, this is how the Cantor's "naive set theory" (not so naive, by the way, but trivial enough) was crashed in one shot: Bill Woodruff answers questions of all CodeProject members except of the members who answer their questions themselves. Does Bill answer his own questions?
If we suppose he does, he is an element of the subset of CodeProject members who do answer their own questions. But Bill does not answer questions of the members of this subset, so he does not answer his own questions, too. From the other hand, if now we suppose that he does not answer his own questions, he is an element of the subset of CodeProject members who do not answer their own questions, and he does answer questions of all members of this subset, so he does answer his own questions. We came to a deadlock.
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sergey,
Amir Aczel's book documents the episodes of insanity of both Cantor and Godel, correlating them with their work in "infinite ordinality." Cantor died, impoverished and malnourished, in a sanitarium; Godel starved himself to death while his wife was in the hospital. Both of them had ideation about their food being "poisioned."
cheers, Bill
« I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief » Immanuel Kant
|
|
|
|
|
Oh… that wasn't insane enough. I which they would go insane because of some paradox.
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sergey,
If you read Aczel's short book, I believe you may conclude, as I did, that its major thesis is that the pursuit of the type of knowledge (for lack of a better word) "embodied" in the mathematical domain of the ordinality of infinities is inherently a "dangerous" metaphysical (that's where the Kabbalah comes in to the picture) quest, and that Aczel believes the madness of these two geniuses was related to their study of that specific domain.
In the light of modern understanding of "mental illness," a questionable, but interesting, thesis.
I keep waiting for a response on this thread from someone of the type: "what are you guys smoking ?"
cheers, Bill
« I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief » Immanuel Kant
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you understand that we never understood (me, and hope, you too) the notion of "sanity" literally or, in fact, even seriously.
One of the best wonders of mathematics is revealing the inertia of thinking in human, which is the first step into expanding the mind (last expression can also be easily associated with "smoking").
All right, did you notice that Chris provided me with my text saved from the database?.. so I preserved it. This is great.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Your post was:
Quote: Some questions are clever, some are silly or naive, some are not well-defined. But this question is worse. It's about nothing; the question of a person who has nothing to do. Please forgive me for these words; I know that it might be not true, I just say that the question looks like that. Maybe, this is just a matter of misunderstanding.
I guess I should explain why there is such impression.
Well, everyone understands that it's way too easy to check up if "Android" is the name of some OS or not. No need to ask a question; the answer would come much faster if you consult Wikipedia or other source. As to the word "technology", the situation is much worse. One could suspect that you are unfamiliar with all the uses of this fuzzy notion, "technology". But then you would probably need to get some idea on that, which would be well behind your interest in Android. But if you have a good idea of the patterns of the use of the word "technology" (which is much more likely), it means that you have a wrong idea of how knowledge works, and this would be more troublesome.
Maybe you don't understand that there is no such thing as verbal knowledge. (Of course, except the knowledge related to words themselves, such as knowledge of language, linguistics, and so on.) For example, as new OS often introduce some new technologies, OS itself can be call "technology", or the name of the OS could be associated with the OS name, as in "Android technology". But there is no any valid statement in telling that "this OS is a technology" or "this OS is not"; and the question "is it OS or technology?" sounds as a total absurd. This is because none of those statements means anything to the understanding of that OS. There is no such thing as verbal knowledge. Discussing such things is only possible in some imitation of "clever discussion". About nothing.
Please consider two previous paragraphs also as an answer to the question about "technology".
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, you saved me a day. (Not measured in time, of course, but in my gratitude. )
Thank you so much!
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I've been trying to edit my article http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/278901/MVVM-Pattern-Made-Simplede-Simple">MVVM Pattern Made Simple[^].
When I click on "Update your article link" I am getting the default page to edit as if I am starting a new article:
Introduction
What the article/code snippet does...
etc.
Please fix it.
Thanks
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
That's because we're all eagerly waiting new articles from you. The existing ones are just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking seriously - there was smth I wanted to correct. There is some style mess after the words
" and you'll see a MessageBox popping up"
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see. Also there's some problem after "For ItemsControl sample, see ItemsControlDataTemplateTest.sln solution".
For what it's worth, I tried to edit few of my articles and that worked out just fine so this behaviour isn't affecting all articles...
|
|
|
|
|
I can also edit my other articles, but for some reason not this one.
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. I think I saved it? Try now.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Now it works, thanks!
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should be able to now.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Pasted links to Online Etymology Dictionary are resulting in the message being amputated in various odd places.
Here's the link in plain-text, followed by the link as transformed by the CP editor after a paste, and "reduced" by me to only the content between brackets for posting:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sarcasm
Here we go: [^]
Is it going to be amputated ?
thanks, Bill
« I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief » Immanuel Kant
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the same bug as this[^], or at least related to it.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
So ... what is the result [^]?
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|