858 reputation
1513
bio website mathnet.ru/php/…
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 5 months
seen 4 hours ago

Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
I am not against any type of formal logic, including intuitionist or any other. But in any way when you accept formal rules, they don't allow you to "deduce" everything what you want, like this was in marxist propaganda. They needed dialectic (see vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/popper_what-is-dialectic.pdf) to have this indulgence, this possibility to deduce what they needed in every concrete moment. Sometimes, when the situation changed, they changed their conclusions to the opposite ones. But every time this was under the slogans that "these are the last words of modern science!"
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid, I think, the problem is that you had no deal with marxist propaganda: their main thesis in this area was that there is "formal logic" (in usual mathematical sense), and this is "old-fashioned", "mathephysical", "wrong" logic. And on the other hand, there is "dialectic", "the modern logic", "true logic", "the last word of the science". And of course, a thinking person must choose dialectic, since this is "modern science". To understand what lies behind this (and to be able to find counter-arguments) you had to know what formal logic actually was. That was the question.
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
For example, I don't believe that it is possible to contest Hegel's "reasonings" which I cited, if you are not familiar with formal logic and its substantial applications like EG: all your objections will be broken on the thesis that "this is the old-fashioned understanding of the subject, but the modern science and modern logic suggest that..." - and so on.
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid, something similar was in the soviet education: in the course of history (and philosophy in universities) there were lessons where teachers gave some imagination of different religions. But the accent was that "the true scientific approach suggests that..." - and after that the quotations of Lenin, Marx, Hegel - and deep in chronology. So for forming critical view this seemed to be almost useless in that situation.
Dec
25
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid: this is amazing: " religion and latin". Will it be difficult to you to give an example?
Dec
25
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid: It's a great surprise for me that Latin or Philosophy can be seriously considered as alternatives for studying Logic. In Russia only physicians study Latin. Philosophy exists in universities (and partly was presented in ideological disciplines like "history" or "state and law" at school), but it was considered that its aim was to provide ideological fundament for the communist party's politics. As a corollary, they did their best to make an impression that the statements like what I quoted from Hegel "follow directly from rules of logic".
Dec
22
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quim: Yes, but there is a qualitative difference -- if you are familiar with logic, then you can say: "Excuse me, what you call "modern logic" is not logic at all! Compare this with the EG!" You have no this possibility if you know only special tricks like "proofs by induction" (which quid mentioned in my answer, that I deleted recently).
Dec
22
comment Is Euclid dead?
"quid and quim are different people!" -- Ah! Excuse me, I did not notice! Yes briefly that was my point: "if you take proofs out of the curriculum, bullshit like this will come in instead." Anton understood me correctly.
Dec
22
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid: The critical thought existed in USSR, otherwise the Gorbachov reforms wouldn't have support at their beginning. And I would say, it was based on technical education (rested upon logic, without Latin, Philosophy and Linguistics). Quid, do you have time for a little chat? I forsee accusations in off-topic.
Dec
22
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid, this is indeed intriguing. Are you saying that this is taught at schools in the West? Latin, Philosophy, Logic?
Dec
22
comment Is Euclid dead?
Maybe this explains everything... In Russia nothing of this exists at school. I even hardly imagine this. In particular, Latin and Greek authors were almost inavailable in USSR, they were published rarely and with little circulation. I read Herodotus only in 1990ies...
Dec
22
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid: Blow out... I must say, I don't see how training in langauge and philosophy could be useful here. As to logic do you know a way to train logic outside of mathematics?
Dec
21
comment Is Euclid dead?
Unfortunately, I was born in USSR, where those stupidities were presented without hesitation in school education as "great truth of modern science", and "modern logic" (since the author, G.W.F.Hegel suggested his own understanding of logic in his great masterpieces marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlconten.htm). Fortunately, we had been also taught geometry, where we could understand what actually logic is, and this saved us from total intellectual degradation.
Dec
21
comment Is Euclid dead?
Or: "That the line does not consist of points, nor the plane of lines, follows from their concepts, for the line is the point existing outside of itself relating itself to space, and suspending itself and the plane is just as much the suspended line existing outside of itself.-Here the point is represented as the first and positive entity, and taken as the starting point. The converse, though, is also true: in as far as space is positive, the plane is the first negation and the line is the second, which, however, is in its truth the negation relating self to self the point."
Dec
21
comment Is Euclid dead?
For example marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature1.htm: "Negativity, which as point relates itself to space and in space develops its determinations as line and plane, is, however, in the sphere of self-externality equally for itself and appearing indifferent to the motionless coexistence of space. Negativity, thus posited for itself is time."
Dec
21
comment Is Euclid dead?
Gil, when children at school are taught religion or military training, is it doubtful for you as well? Wouldn't it be better to explain them that when a "great intellectual leader" tells something strange there is a possibility to verify whether what he says is indeed wise, or on the contrary stupid? :)
Dec
20
comment Is Euclid dead?
It is clear for me that the attitude of different people to this subject depends exactly on the culture of teaching geometry in their countries. As far as I see, Russians are more satisfied with the way of how EG is taught at school, than Americans and Chinese. The solution I believe is sharing the experience: translating textbooks, teaching school teachers, and so on.
Dec
20
comment Is Euclid dead?
@Zhen Lin: I don't understand your point. It is desirable to have illustrations when you explain something, that's why visualization is important. If there is a possibility to explain logic WITH illustrations, it is better than explaining it WITHOUT them. Or what are you talking about? Again, I feel that this will be a long discussion, will it be better to chat?
Dec
20
comment Is Euclid dead?
Ah, yes! Thank you! I'll add this to my armoury. :)
Dec
20
comment Is Euclid dead?
I forgot to add that in my opinion so far there are no other effective tools to teach people logic at school but giving them Euclidean Geometry. You (and other people) mentioned combinatrics, projective geometry, etc., but first, there must be good textbooks for children (I do not know them), and second I don't believe that one can think up something that can compete with the visuality of EG.