81:
71:
53:
267:(1) the Ehrlich source seems only to be available at Springer, but the other source cited is freely available at the arxiv. (2) Russell is a first rate philosopher and is certainly capable of expressing himself clearly. What the source appears to argue is that he fell short of his usual standard of clarity in this case. Have you read Russell's discussion of infinitesimals?
22:
189:, I presume? If so, could you wikilink it, please, and maybe even rephrase just a bit to make the intended meaning clear to us amateurs? If it was the vernacular sense you intended then, well, sir, I must ask whether duels are still permitted in your home country? ;-) Russell's a favourite of mine, you see. Cheers, –
319:
two or three times over the past 30 years. But every time I pick it up again, I'm always dismayed to see how much I've forgotten. To be candid, it would take me a month or more to be able to evaluate
Ehrlich's and Katz's criticisms adequately: I'd have that much to relearn. Perhaps later this summer,
448:
Okay, I've given it a try. Please edit away if you see fit! Now, I've become the amateur webmaster at the Arisbe website (cspeirce.com) since mid-2011 so I can't just freely add links to papers stored there, but it's okay for me to ask editors here if they want to add such a link. The link is to the
355:
interested in
Russell in general or this page in particular :) Inspite of being a logicist Russell seems to have gobbled up hook, line, and sinker Cantor's Platonism about set theory. From a distance of a century it is certainly embarrassing to find Russell making statements to the effect that "it
392:
Peirce indicated that he thought it unoriginal. See the first paragraph of his review of What is
Meaning? and The Principles of Mathematics (1903), The Nation, v. 77, n. 1998, p. 308, Google Books Eprint, reprinted in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce v. 8 (1958), paragraph 171 footnote.
242:
Yes, I did notice; thank you. I'm afraid I don't have access to the sources, or perhaps the expertise to evaluate them if I did. But I love
Russell; sometimes I get a headache from trying to understand him, but that's not because he's expressing himself unclearly, it's because he's dealing very
159:. This Talk will serve to bring improvement to the article by providing space to comment. Many users of the encyclopedia prefer to find faults and make comments instead of corrections, and the Talk is the place to note errors or other failures of the article.
423:
in the body of the article, at some point in this article's history, perhaps as recently as a year ago or less. I don't have time to verify that at the moment, but I'm almost certain. I agree with you: I think more of it belongs in the body, as well.
324:
mathematicians and philosophers who frequent this page. as I'm currently in no position to debate on the subject. It's surprising how much one forgets, and how quickly, without working with the ideas in one's career, alas.
449:
paper by
Anellis "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced" mentioned in the footnote. I've looked around and can't find it available elsewhere on the Web. http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/anellis/csp&br.htm
393:
Murray
Murphey called the review "so brief and cursory that I am convinced that he never read the book." in Murphy, Murray (1993). The Development of Peirce's Philosophy. Hackett Pub. Co.. p. 241.
224:
If the source cited does not use this term, it is perhaps better to stick to the wording found therein. However, incoherence in the generic sense of the term is clearly the intended meaning.
356:
is really is true, as Cantor said, that infinite sets, etc." If you can give a coherent account of
Russell's position on infinitesimals I would certainly be interested in hearing about it.
400:. Others such Norbert Wiener and Christine Ladd-Franklin shared Peirce's view of Russell's work. See Anellis, Irving (1995), "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced", Modern Logic 5, 270-328.
471:
The link has been put in the Pierce footnote. Thank you for the suggestion and data. Another editor can summarize
Anellis' view for the modern reviews section.
504:
101:
247:
difficult ideas. On the contrary, no one else I've read can express himself so clearly, exactly, and concisely in his topic area. –
397:
105:
499:
33:
95:
58:
182:
434:
335:
257:
199:
454:
152:
39:
109:
21:
210:
You may have noticed that I changed the wording several hours ago in response to your comment.
476:
426:
394:
327:
249:
191:
164:
450:
409:
361:
290:
272:
229:
215:
480:
458:
439:
413:
365:
340:
294:
276:
262:
233:
219:
204:
168:
155:, showing that it deserves attention. It seems to be the first book in English devoted to
113:
493:
80:
472:
160:
86:
405:
357:
286:
268:
225:
211:
282:
156:
76:
70:
52:
100:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
281:
Actually, I now see that
Ehrlich's text is also freely available
404:
It seems to me more of it should make it into the main text.
15:
320:
but for now I'll have to rely on the good offices of the
388:
The following material currently appears in a footnote:
186:
112:. To improve this article, please refer to the
8:
185:sense of "incoherence" that you intended in
108:. To use this banner, please refer to the
47:
106:discuss matters related to book articles
114:relevant guideline for the type of work
49:
19:
151:This book has been closely studied by
7:
92:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
79:
69:
51:
20:
315:I've carefully worked through
1:
317:The Principles of Mathematics
169:23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
122:Knowledge:WikiProject Books
521:
505:WikiProject Books articles
125:Template:WikiProject Books
64:
46:
481:23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
459:20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
440:16:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
414:08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
366:08:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
341:18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
295:17:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
277:16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
263:16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
234:07:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
220:16:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
205:15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
347:I don't know how many
28:This article is rated
500:B-Class Book articles
153:Ivor Grattan-Guinness
351:mathematicians are
34:content assessment
384:critical material
144:
143:
140:
139:
136:
135:
96:WikiProject Books
512:
438:
431:
339:
332:
261:
254:
203:
196:
130:
129:
126:
123:
120:
102:join the project
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
520:
519:
515:
514:
513:
511:
510:
509:
490:
489:
427:
425:
386:
328:
326:
250:
248:
243:concisely with
192:
190:
176:
149:
127:
124:
121:
118:
117:
85:
78:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
518:
516:
508:
507:
502:
492:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
464:
463:
462:
461:
443:
442:
402:
401:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
237:
236:
222:
175:
172:
148:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
134:
133:
131:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
517:
506:
503:
501:
498:
497:
495:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
460:
456:
452:
447:
446:
445:
444:
441:
436:
432:
430:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
411:
407:
399:
398:0-87220-231-3
396:
391:
390:
389:
383:
367:
363:
359:
354:
350:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
337:
333:
331:
323:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
259:
255:
253:
246:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
206:
201:
197:
195:
188:
184:
181:
173:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
146:
132:
128:Book articles
115:
111:
110:documentation
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
429:OhioStandard
428:
420:
403:
387:
352:
348:
330:OhioStandard
329:
321:
316:
252:OhioStandard
251:
244:
194:OhioStandard
193:
179:
177:
150:
94:
93:
87:Books portal
40:WikiProjects
451:The Tetrast
419:More of it
174:Incoherence
494:Categories
157:set theory
187:this edit
353:actually
473:Rgdboer
161:Rgdboer
30:B-class
406:Tkuvho
358:Tkuvho
349:actual
322:actual
287:Tkuvho
269:Tkuvho
226:Tkuvho
212:Tkuvho
147:Issues
36:scale.
119:Books
59:Books
477:talk
455:talk
435:talk
410:talk
395:ISBN
362:talk
336:talk
291:talk
283:here
273:talk
258:talk
245:very
230:talk
216:talk
200:talk
183:this
165:talk
104:and
424:–
421:was
325:–
285:.
180:was
178:It
496::
479:)
457:)
412:)
364:)
293:)
275:)
232:)
218:)
167:)
475:(
453:(
437:)
433:(
408:(
360:(
338:)
334:(
289:(
271:(
260:)
256:(
228:(
214:(
202:)
198:(
163:(
116:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
