A Portrait of Frank Ramsey - Better than the Stars (1978)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 лип 2022
- The following is a portrait of the life and thought of F. P. Ramsey from a 1978 BBC Radio broadcast. The presenter was Hugh Mellor, and it includes contributions by A. J. Ayer, Richard Braithwaite, Dick Jeffrey, Lord Ramsey, Mrs Lettice Ramsey and I. A. Richards. Excerpts from Ramsey's writings are read by Hugh Dickson and from Maynard Keynes's writings by Gabriel Woolf.
Memorial Site for the presenter, Hugh Mellor: hughmellor.com
#Philosophy
![My Grandfather Met Napoleon: Bertrand Russell Interview 1952 - Enhanced Video & Audio [60 fps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4OXtO92x5KA/mqdefault.jpg)
Only the BBC can produce something as fascinating and classy as this.
*could
Not really.
The BBC is full of imperialist, capitalist propaganda garbage.
@@plekkchand Really
well-said indeed!
I’ve always been so fascinated by him. Unbelievably brilliant. The biggest what-if of the 20th century, no doubt.
I also wouldn't have minded if Ramanujan had had a stab at an axiom settling the Continuum Hypothesis or the Riemann Hypothesis.
@@Achrononmaster Wow, I wasn’t familiar with Ramanujan. Thanks for mentioning him, I just went down a most fascinating rabbit hole!
@@Achrononmaster Hardy remarked that Ramanujan had little to no idea of what a rigorous proof in mathematics is. In particular, there is no chance he would have made any headway on CH, which is very far removed from his actual interests. I think of Ramanujan as virtually unmatched in the art of formal manipulation, e.g., of infinite sums, infinite products, continued fractions, etc. -- a kind of 20th century successor to Euler. As for RH: expecting him to be able to solve that is almost like expecting Fermat to have actually had a proof of FLT. It's hard or impossible to rule out the possibility, but all indications is that they require methods and techniques far, far beyond anything they could have come up with.
Other big what-ifs include Walter Pitts and Hart Crane.
enjoyed this very much... thanks for sharing, P.O... keep doin' yo thang!!!
Ramsey, like Turing, was dazzling in the clarity and brilliance of his thought. They both died too early.
A mysterious thinker and man!
Thank you for this video
Lovely thanks
Thank You
Richard Montague in America and Frank Ramsey of Britain are highly overlooked in scholarship.
Charles Peirce is another philosopher who needs a editor to collect his disparate writings into a Reader of sorts.
Our understanding of biology is about to get revolutionized via the integration of Peirce's grand theory of semeiotics int the field. This is paralleled to what's happening in complexity theory.
@@pyb.5672what is it called?
What was the name of the paper at the end of the video where he talks about how comparative size isn’t a worry to him? I’d very much like to read the full thing.
johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2017/05/is-there-anything-to-discuss-by-frank.html Found it. Here it is if anyone else would like to have a read.
“on there being no discussable subject”
See excerpt (and link to source) at:
johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2017/05/is-there-anything-to-discuss-by-frank.html
bro looks like thomas shelby
Bookmark: 35:00
Ramsey, turing , Neumann
Is this… Francis of the Filth himself?
There ain't half been some clever bastards.
polloooLo.
"....LEF-WING.." BUT Perhaps More OF SOCIAL-JUSTICE CONSCIOUS!.. 😀😀😀😁😁👍👍🙏❤️❤️❤️
HE SEEMS TO BE A MATHEMATICIAN-PHILOSOPHER!.. RAMSEY THEORY IS VERY MUCH, AH YES MATHEMATICIAN INDEED, MATH-LOGIC THEORIST!.. A FIED I'VE BEEN WORKING "ON-AND-OFF" OVER 10 YRS NOW!!... 😀😀😀😁😁👍👍👍👍👍❤️❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏
No need to shout
They aren't shouting?
@30:50 it's a pity (a) Ramsey did not understand taxation: it is not a source of the revenue (revenir = "return back") for a monopoly currency issuer, it's a drain (a redemption) from the economy not a source. The source of revenue for the monopoly sovereign issuer is the sovereign issuer (a sovereign always issues by fiat) that's why it was called revenue. So he got that all backwards. And (b) the utility functions used in his "elegant" theory of national savings is stupid, there is no such utility function, it's a fictional notion. Utility in macroeconomics of any worthy meaning is maximum employment at sustainable ecological levels, which for labour means full employment at living wages. A lot of gross mileage has been made out of the more fraudulent utility-value theory (Samuelson and onwards). It's pretty disgusting stuff, although Frank Ramsey by all accounts was a thoroughly decent chap. Tragically the use of his work by Neoclassicals, Monetarists and New Keynesians hurt the poor the most, something no doubt he would have profoundly regretted.
'The source of revenue for the monopoly sovereign issuer is the sovereign issuer (a sovereign always issues by fiat) that's why it was called revenue.' Isn't that a tautology?
@@MrLcowles A mistake!
@@MrLcowles if the government creates money and sends it into the economy, the government is in debt, but there is more currency floating around. When the government taxes, the debt is being paid back. A country with no debt, has no currency circulating. That's how I understand it. But now that I wrote that out, it certainly makes taxes sound like revenue or a "return back". Though, it would also be true that it's not useful as savings, it just means the actual people in the country have less at the specific time.
Anyway, I don't know enough about it to know what the specific definitions are, but I agree conceptually with what Bijou Smith said- full disclosure.
Dumb heterodoxes everywhere in the web...
You can’t have a bright star 🌟without the sun /son...even Wagner converted on his death bed . What does it profit a man ....don’t waste your intelligence , use it for the good of Heaven and if you never had an encounter with the Lord , pray . Great minds with open hearts can except eternal truths , will pray for him and the upcoming 🌟of the World 🙏🙏🙏