Series

Come back when you're sober.

>>8045702
a-anon, I was serious...

>>8045632
You are probably missing something, but there is no way for us to tell without the quote in context. Wittgenstein's discussion of math in the Tractatus and thr Investigations is, so far as I can tell, pretty general; that is, his points don't hinge on the accuracy of the mathematicsl propositions they explain. Accordingly, it seems possible that he made a mathematical error, just so long as the correctness of the mathematical proposition was not central to the philosophical statement he was making.
Then again, he is Wittgenstein; you're probably the one in error. Give us the context and maybe we can help you out.

>>8045754
Not OP, but I don't remember this example being in the Tractatus and it sounds moee like talk of language games (later Wittgenstein) anyway

>>8045775
it's from Philosophical Investigations

>>8045778
what section number?

>>8045754

>This example goes back to the case of teaching a pupil to continue
series of numbers which a teacher writes down. Wittgenstein describes
the case he now wants us to consider as follows:
Now—judged by the usual criteria—the pupil has mastered the
series of natural numbers. Next we teach him to write down other
series of cardinal numbers and get him to the point of writing
down series of the form
0, n, 2n, 3n, etc.
at an order of the form “+n”; so at the order “+1” he writes down
the series of natural numbers. —Let us suppose we have done
exercises and given him tests up to 1000. Now we get the pupil
to continue a series (say +2) beyond 1000—and he writes 1000,
1004, 1008, 1012.
We say to him: “Look what you’ve done!” —He doesn’t
understand. We say: “You were meant to add two: look
how you began the series!” —He answers: “Yes isn’t it
right? I thought that was how I was meant to do it.” —Or
suppose he pointed to the series and said: “But I went on
in the same way.”
(PI 185)
Wittgenstein describes this case as one in which the pupil’s natural reaction
to the training he has received is different from our own: ‘It comes naturally
to this person to understand our order with our explanations as we should
understand the order: “Add 2 up to 1000, 4 up to 2000, 6 up to 3000, and so
on”’ (PI 185). And he compares it with a case of someone’s reacting to the
gesture of pointing by looking in the direction of the line from finger-tip to
wrist, rather than vice versa.

This is from McGinn's book on Wittgenstein. I get the language-game, but I'm puzzled by the actual mathematics.

File: hHm1sN2.webm (695KB, 334x250px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 334x250px

>>8045786
wait, I just realized what I overlooked.

Mods I take it back, delete this thread

>>8045781
>>8045786

I have read the Tractatus, and OP's thing is nowhere to be found in it. I have PI on the shelf and am tentatively agreeing that 185 is the relevant passage. I don't see an easy link so I will transcribe the full section, it's not too terribly long (could do with better formatting than the above too, just sayin).

Next post so we see what OP is referring to.

>>8045786
The relevant bit of the mathematics is that the pupil is wrong; it was, literally, as you say, "a random example of a misunderstanding." The pupil added 4 rather than 2. I think that it was an ordered error, rather than an apparently random one, to make the situation somewhat plausible. If the pupil had written 1000, 381772, 2, 399, and said "isn't this how I was meant to do it?" we would have no idea what to make of it; he wouldn't just be wrong or failing to comport with the rules of the language game--he would be making an error we can't even understand. And if you think that's what he's doing in adding 4 rather than 2, that's okay--the point doesn't hinge on the pupil's mistake being conceivable or likely.

>>8045786
I have no fucking idea what you are talking about
but good luck i guess.

It feels like this guy just misinterpreted what "add 2 up to 1000". Meaning he reasoned that he should have added 2 to the number he's is adding instead of just actually adding 2. Nothing else. That is how i understand his misinterpretation and when it comes to philosophy and the talk of language, his misinterpretation is completely reasonable.

>>8045826

Meh, I read it and the one it refers to (143) and it's just Wittgenstein setting up an example of a student "doing it wrong" from the teacher's perspective, as I expected.

the last three posts say exactly the same thing