Talk:Raymond Smullyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Is God A Taoist?"[edit]

After reading this short story/interview, I wonder why it didn't go on for a few more pages.

After seeming to absolve us of our sins by claiming God is a naturalist as opposed to moralist, he gives no account as to why there are moralists in the first place. After a comment about 'morbid moralism', we are left with the belief that, even though there is a definite way to perfection and the end of human suffering, the moralists either have the most of it wrong or they only exacerbate the problems.

Now it's clear that Mr.Smullyan attempts to balance his message by throwing so much weight against moralists (after all, they get too much attention anyway don't they), but I am of the opinion that he is simply the one moralizing on the pedestal. A few more pages of dialogue might have cleared this up because after all, between God and the Mortal - they seem to have an incredibly difficult time communicating and coming to an understanding between each other.

Other than that, the story was nice and I think it was worthy of the read. Fascinating.

What is the name of this book?[edit]

It seems like there's too much about this book than about Smullyan himself (i.e. biographical info.), his contributions to logic and other fields, and just stuff about Smullyan, damn it. If I wanted to read a review of his book, I would have gone elsewhere. Nortexoid 00:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The start a page of that book, and put that stuff there. Mathmo Talk 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the title of this book the "most notable"? I can see that certain titles are most notable insofar as they are themselves paradoxical or give rise to paradoxes, but What is the name of this book? is not the only title in this category. The same is true of This Book Needs No Title, for example. --Dienw (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Drinker Paradox[edit]

I recently created an article about Smullyan's Drinker Paradox. The article has been marked for deletion, because people thought it was just a joke. I'd like to save this article: to do that, I need to give the exact reference to the source of the paradox. I don't know in which book it is to be found. If anybody here knows, please visit the Drinker Paradox page and add the reference. Also, you can join the discussion page and give your support to keep the article. Eubulide 16:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The VfD has been resolved with a vote to keep. The source is What is the Name of this Book?; I have added this to the Drinker Paradox article. Regards, John Moore 309 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Persi Diaconis in the introduction[edit]

The reference to Persi Diaconis in the introduction seems unqualified and distracting. No reason is given for the reference. Whether or not Persi Diaconis is worth thinking about for readers interested in Smullyan, this seems very distracting, especially for introductory matter. Is it unreasonable to propose that Diaconis be at best mentioned as something to "see also" if not entirely excised?

SuperDerek (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree: it is neither justified or clear why this person is mentioned at that place. However, we should see this in the context as summarized by the template at the head of the whole article: it needs some careful reading and editing to improve it, along with more in-text citations. In this specific case, I think it could be removed, and can be added back later if a suitable way of integrating it into the artycle can be found.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote[edit]

The quotation in this article belongs in Wikiquote, right? Shouldn't it be moved there? - 80.101.119.181 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgente[edit]

Qualcuno sa come posso contattare Raymond Smullyan? Se ha un indirizzo e-mail? Lo so che è una richiesta bizzarra da scrivere in una pagina di discussione, ma tentare non nuoce.

Traduzione di google: I know that is a bizarre request to be written on a discussion-page. How can I contact Raymond Smullyan? He has an e-mail?

--79.36.215.86 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Allora? And then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.239.64 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancora nessuna risposta. Ma non perdo la speranza. Aspetto. --79.55.230.191 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your best bet is to try to contact him through the Philosophy department of Indiana University.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ho provato anche in questo modo ma non ci sono riuscito. Voglio a tutti i costi conoscere Raymond! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.222.171 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Auguri dall'Italia per i novant'anni![edit]

25 Maggio 2009

--79.52.239.228 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Query about a paper[edit]

The sentence While a Ph.D. student, Smullyan published a paper in the 1957 Journal of Symbolic Logic showing that Gödelian incompleteness held for formal systems considerably more elementary than that of Gödel's 1931 landmark paper seems to refer to Languages in which self reference is possible. Is there a reliable source that can confirm or deny this?Autarch (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is in the Journal of Symbolic LogicVolume 22, Number 1, March 1957 page 55-67, Raymond M. Smullyan: Languages in Which Self Reference is Possible. ps i haven't read the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.150.92 (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Twitter reports of his death[edit]

There are Twitter reports from plausible and plausible-looking sources that Raymond Smullyan has just died, apparently on the 7th or the 8th (February 2017): https://twitter.com/adolfont/status/829361954301104128 https://twitter.com/valeriadepaiva/status/829373835568783360 https://twitter.com/ehud/status/829424626568724487 . No really solid source yet it seems, though. RW Dutton (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sad news. There's a Facebook post from a friend, but I'm not seeing any coverage in secondary sources yet. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a Leiter Reports post about it now, which perhaps is authoritative enough to go with. If not, then at least it has been promised that notices will be added there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RW Dutton (talkcontribs) 17:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
As a personal blog, I think that's WP:BLPSPS - "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person". (And I'm sure Smullyan would appreciate the question of whether the announcement that a person has died was a statement about a living person.) I assume we'll get some formal obituaries over the weekend. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Magician?[edit]

The article begins by saying he was a magician - but then never mentions this again, never mind providing any sources for the claim (which appears in some obituaries, perhaps simply copied from this article as they don't give any detail). I have removed it, pending someone adding a proper reference (which doesn't just lead back to an earlier version of this artilcle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.63.49 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)