If you follow the link to his page "I'm upset...Here is why", you can see that this person has a significant degree of "crankiness". These people through their perhaps not deliberate obfuscation, often manage to trick the mathematically naive into thinking there is substance there - "it is so hard and confusing, it must be real math."
It is a disservice to have links like this on Hacker News.
The parent isn't saying the author is cranky, like ornery, he's saying he's a crank. The link being referred to [0] seems to be a classic piece of crankery meandering from the solution to global warming to perceived slights against the author on Internet forums and who knows what else.
The question then, knowing this, is whether the OP link is quality content?
Honestly, Wittgenstein's philosophical critiques of set theory in relation to the foundations of mathematics still hold true today. Shame he doesn't get more recognition for his great work in logic.
Wittgenstein was primarily interested in the linguistic applications of logic. IMO, he wasn't on the same level as Whitehead, Russell, or Curry; let alone Hilbert, Gödel, and Zermelo.
And maybe it's just my experience, but Wittgenstein was always shoved down our throats in my undergraduate and graduate classes, whereas people may have never even heard of Jan Łukasiewicz or Stephen Kleene.
I'm intrigued but, upon Googling, pretty at sea with all the vocabulary. Is there an explain-like-I'm-slightly-above-five for Wittgenstein's critique of set theory? It seems like he doesn't like infinity very much?
I guess it is mostly a matter of taste, like whether one favors functional programming or imperative programming. Set theory is being used successfully in formal systems, so in principle there is nothing wrong with it.
Shame [Wittgenstein] doesn't get more recognition for his great work in logic.
Which great work in logic did W. produce?
He is known for some inchoate criticisms, e.g. he doesn't like Cantor's diagonal proof, but none of his criticisms have -- as far as I'm aware, lead anywhere interesting in logic.
It's not really your fault, but defeating Google-gotcha interview questions is a very distorting motivation. I'd like to think that this material is worth studying because it will help you to achieve things you otherwise could not, whether at Google or elsewhere.
But that leads to a different kind of study: deep dives into specialized subjects relevant for the task at hand, rather than attempting to maintain shallow coverage over a broad field.
I still wish I could find the time to study all this foundational math... super interesting and I have a sneaky suspicion the answer to a great many philosophical questions are hidden in there.
Well, that's like saying you blew a Google interview question because you failed to recognize a black vine weevil, therefore keeping up with entomology is pretty important. One company having a buggy interview process that asks questions irrelevant to the job, at the very most means if you are applying for a job at that company you should spend a couple days cramming for the interview. It does not mean you should spend the precious hours of your life studying a field that's irrelevant to your job on an ongoing basis.
To be clear, if you want to study set theory or entomology because you find them interesting for their own sake then far be it from me to criticize that decision. I'm just disagreeing with the argument that you should do so because of one company's buggy interview process.
[+] [-] gver|10 years ago|reply
It is a disservice to have links like this on Hacker News.
[+] [-] SerpentJoe|10 years ago|reply
The question then, knowing this, is whether the OP link is quality content?
[0] http://settheory.net/life
[+] [-] spacehome|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robobro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvt|10 years ago|reply
And maybe it's just my experience, but Wittgenstein was always shoved down our throats in my undergraduate and graduate classes, whereas people may have never even heard of Jan Łukasiewicz or Stephen Kleene.
[+] [-] shadytrees|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mafribe|10 years ago|reply
He is known for some inchoate criticisms, e.g. he doesn't like Cantor's diagonal proof, but none of his criticisms have -- as far as I'm aware, lead anywhere interesting in logic.
[+] [-] dmead|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|10 years ago|reply
But that leads to a different kind of study: deep dives into specialized subjects relevant for the task at hand, rather than attempting to maintain shallow coverage over a broad field.
[+] [-] gooseus|10 years ago|reply
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/power-set.html
I still wish I could find the time to study all this foundational math... super interesting and I have a sneaky suspicion the answer to a great many philosophical questions are hidden in there.
[+] [-] rwallace|10 years ago|reply
To be clear, if you want to study set theory or entomology because you find them interesting for their own sake then far be it from me to criticize that decision. I'm just disagreeing with the argument that you should do so because of one company's buggy interview process.
[+] [-] burritofanatic|10 years ago|reply