Dynamic logic for arXiv and viXra

In static logic p & q is equivalent to q & p. Dynamic logic arises when p && q differs from q && p. Perhaps “ordinal logic” is a term too. In programming, a list of statement { p[1], p[2], …, p[n] } often is such that it matters in which order the statements are executed.

An example of execution indeed: first feed the prisoner and then hang him, or first hang him and then feed him: it tends to make a difference (except when the hanging fails and the prisoner survives, though possibly still with less of an appetite).

The wikipedia article on dynamic logic distinguishes it from temporal logic but I have always used the term dynamic logic in that ordinal sense, see my book A Logic of Exceptions (ALOE), programmed in Mathematica.

Note also that the math students of MIT are sabotaging the purposes of wikipedia more and more. While I wrote ALOE to arrive at a didactic flow, the wikipedia articles nowadays even on elementary issues plunge you into gibberish that is useless even for a decent math course. One wonders when it would dawn on the creators of wikipedia that there are Van Hiele levels of understanding, so that one would require at least three wikipedia articles: novice, student, professional.

Application of dynamic logic to yesterday’s issue of arXiv versus viXra leads to the following. An awful lot of research professionals attach value to arXiv rather than viXra & PressForward. These professionals tend to be decent scientists and are focused on dissemination. On occasion they might be worried about the odium of cranks. Thus, a sensible approach is:

  • first use arXiv, and use viXra as a back-up if arXiv shows itself to be unscientific
  • in viXra: use the comments to explain the history and invite reviews by others
  • in viXra: for each submission also review at least one other work in your area
  • use PressForward and Elo-rating (see Voting Theory for Democracy, chapter 7)

Phil Gibbs gave the examples of Cantor and Gödel. Both ended as nutcases but many will regard them as decent scientists in their published work. Some of their results are even highly regarded. When I looked at those claimed major elementary results, I found those wanting. On occasion I will regard Cantor and Gödel as crackpots of the first order, since if they had had common sense then they surely had the capacity to debunk their claimed “big results”. I suppose that it may be merely human to delude oneself, and continue in that state if nobody corrects you. Vladimir Putin is a case in point. I also think that Kronecker failed as a scientist, since he should have given the counterargument instead of vilifying Cantor at a personal level. Somewhat differently, Hilbert embraced both Cantor and Gödel, and this shows that mathematics and common sense are different issues. Still, all those “results” in arXiv that build on these “big results” may to some extent be reclassified as pretty cranky. My proposal is that arXiv indeed tries for that reclassification, so that in the end arXiv and viXra may indeed not look all too different.

The issue can be classified in the following table. While Jesus is definitely not science, even though viXra currently allows for him, some people would still attach sense to him. At moments, novelists claim that their stories and novels attain a higher truth. Perhaps it is only an issue of the manner of communication and the speaking of a different language. Earlier we discussed how “historian” Amir Alexander first selects a good story and then collects the facts to support it. Such claims can always be debunked and that would be good science again.

Science Not science
Sense My work in economics, some elementary statistics and the education of mathematics. See the refutations in the links in the other boxes. Of course, my paper at viXra. Jesus ?
Not so sensible or sheer nonsense ♦ Gödel with his Gödeliar
Cantor’s diagonal (N < R)
Cauchy & Weierstraß derivative
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
Tall’s reinvention of Van Hiele
The Economist 100 years Einstein
Hans Freudenthal’s fraud
♦ cranks (that should put the fear of God into you)

Comments are closed.