is he the definition of a hack?
>>8215763
He could count the fingers on his hands, and add to ten, but he could tell you why that was so.
>>8215775
*couldn't
>>8215791
The could
>>8215775
From the chapter "Knowledge and Perception in Plato" in "A History of Western Philosophy":
"Clearly the concept 'finger' is abstracted from perception; but how abou tthe concept 'ten'? Here we may seem to have arrived at a true universal or Platonic idea. We cannot say that 'ten' is abstracted from perception, for any percept which can be viewed as ten of some kind of thing can equally well be viewed otherwise. Suppose I give the name "digitary" to all the fingers of one hand taken together; then I can say "I have two digitaries" and this describes the same fact of perception as I formerly described by the help of number ten. Thus in the statement "I have ten fingers" perception plays a smaller part, and conception a larger part, than in such a statement as "this is red." The matter, however, is only one of degree.
The complete answer, as regards propositions in which the word "ten" occurs, is that, when these propositions are correctly analysed, they are found to contain no constituent corresponding to the word "ten." To explain this in the case of such a large number as ten would be complicated*; let us, therefore, substitute "I have two hands." This means:
"There is an a such that there is a b such that a and b are not identical and whatever x may be, "x is a hand of mine" is true when, and only when, x is a or x is b."
Here the word two does not occur. It is true that two letters a and b occur, but we do not need to know that they are two, any more than we need to know that they are black, or white, or whatever color they may be.
Thus numbers are, in a certain precise sense, formal.
*I, the 4chan poster, have taken the liberty of writing this out for my own satisfaction
∃a∃b∃c∃d∃e∃f∃g∃h∃i∃j with (a≠b)(a≠c)(a≠d)(a≠e)(a≠f)(a≠g)(a≠h)(a≠i)(a≠j)(b≠c)(b≠d)(b≠e)(b≠f)(b≠g)(b≠h)(b≠i)(b≠j)(c≠d)(c≠e)(c≠f)(c≠g)(c≠h)(c≠i)(c≠j)(d≠e)(d≠f)(d≠g)(d≠h)(d≠i)(d≠j)(e≠f)(e≠g)(e≠h)(e≠i)(e≠j)(f≠g)(f≠h)(f≠i)(f≠j)(g≠h)(g≠i)(g≠j)(h≠i)(h≠j)(i≠j) such that ∀ x, H(x) iff (x=a)∨(x=b)∨(x=c)∨(x=d)∨(x=e)∨(x=f)∨(x=g)∨(x=h)∨(x=i)∨(x=j)
which could much more easily be "there exists a set of x_i objects indexed by the finte set I such that for any i,j in I with i and j distinct, x_i and x_j are distinct and for any x, H(x) if and only if H(x) =the union of x_i indexed over some i in the set I."
The early mathematical logicians were masochists when it came to strict use of symbols and avoiding shorthands.
In any case Russell did feel he adequately explained addition in Principia Mathematica and this work is still accepted as valid.
>>8217310
>>8215763
The definition of a hack is someone who writes for money with no other aim.
using the word as a blanket pejorative comes from the blog and twitter echo chamber of plebdom
he's underrated among real intellectuals, not even discussed here
>>8217331
I though it means someone who produces shit, yet found success in doing so
What kind of pipe is that? Looks like a Dunhill.
