Talk:Gottlob Frege

message: How is the work of Gottlob Frege related to that of George Boole? --Hirzel 03:06 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You could say that Frege's work was later, was research rather than exposition, was deeper as an enquiry into language. In fact there is no serious intellectual connection, though obviously there might be some comparison in the use of algbra-style notations.  User:Charles Matthews
As I know, Boole mostly worked on the theory of classes in logic, Frege was involved rather in the theories of first-order and second-order languages. It's a more general theory, because class theory is a logical theory, the theories of logical languages are metalogical theories (in a particular, relative meaning of metalogics). These statements are a bit inexact, but I can't explain it detail, cause English is not my original language, however it is true the relation between Boole and Frege is a quite neglected area in the Frege-research. I have no sources about it and I think even if some exists so they are unpopular (f.e. not foundable in internet or in public libraries).  Gubbubu 20:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: boole?

message: ...such as the use of quantification...
* Common logician's error here: in normal english phrases like "two horses", two is a quantifier: no need for variables, bound or otherwise, to have quantification.  Frege's contribution was the way he expressed quantification by means of variables; he did not invent quantification itself.
Frege was the first to devise an axiomatization of propositional logic and of predicate logic.
* Frege did not create a separate theory of propositional logic, as the above suggests, and actually it is an achievement of Frege's to combine propositional connectives and quantifiers in one calculus.
* In fact, the formalisation of predicate logic took almost another 60 years to complete, with the publication of Hilbert and Ackermann's book in 1928.
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Edmund Husserl were among the other philosophical notables strongly influenced by Frege.
* With Wittgenstein this is undeniable (although I think the sentence goes better elsewhere), but just how important an influence was Frege on Husserl.  Husserl first agrees with Frege's objections, and then goes on to change his mind about it.  That Husserl had an important correspondence is clear, but strong influence I think is going too far.
Nice article, though: I was surprised by how many things I learned reading it. ---- Charles Stewart 22:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments, questions and quibbles 25-aug-2004 

message: The article says:
:Frege was the first major proponent of logicism -- the view that mathematics is reducible to logic. ...  Russell discovered the paradox which bears his name, and that the axioms of the Grundgesetze led to this contradiction; he wrote to Frege, who acknowledged the contradiction in an appendix to volume two of the Grundgesetze, noting what he perceived to be the faulty axiom. Frege never did manage to amend his axioms to his satisfaction, however; and after Frege's death, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that Frege's logicist program was impossible.
This strongly suggests that logicism was a failure.  But I don't think that is correct; it seems to me that Frege's program was a success.  Mathematicians still view set theory and logic, as set forth by Frege, to be the proper foundations for mathematics.  It's only in recent years that an alternative, in the form of category theory, has appeared.
:Mathematicians do not view logicist set theory as a proper foundation for mathematics.  Logicist set theory, at least as I see it, was fairly definitively refuted by the Russell paradox.  We do not consider sets to be a logical notion, identified with definable properties of which they are extensions, but as a mathematical notion--collections of objects, and at the same time objects themselves. --Trovatore 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I probably misunderstood what "logicist" means.  Thanks for correcting me.  I will do more research and try to corectly understand the situation. -- Dominus 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You can't get rid of a paradox by adding an axiom.  What Zermelo did was to provide a formal point of reference for the notion of sets as collections of objects rather than as extensions of properties (this was made more explicit by von Neumann, I think).  That's the polar opposite of logicism. --Trovatore 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was  resolved by the axiom; I said it was resolved by Zermelo's work. -- Dominus 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. It addresses only the smallest part of my remarks, though. --Trovatore 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Failure of logicist programme

message: I think that since this is an article about Frege, it is stongly lacking in biographical information about the man.
If you speak Hungarian, see the Hungarian article. Terrible news I haven't got enough time to translate it, but maybe you can ask other hungarians.  Gubbubu 10:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a book review in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/books/review/Holt-t.html?pagewanted=2&nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3), he became an anti-Semite later in life. Kdammers (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More biography needed

message: Nice page, the picture is nice. And what references! I wish I could find more of this qualtiy of work on wikipedia. wvbaileyWvbailey 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: I guess this isn't proper to mention, but isn't Frege partly known for his later years as a far right associate to Bruno Bauch who hated liberals, Catholics, and the French? Also as an Anti-Semite who wanted Jewish people to have their rights curtailed or even be expelled.. Granted scandal maybe shouldn't be added if it's not needed, but I thought this was a well-known aspect of his history as I read it in a print encyclopedia that was over 30 years old.--T. Anthony 13:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, relevant to what, exactly? Not to his work in logic, maybe, but this is a biography; if it's a significant aspect of Frege the man, and can be documented, then I'd include it. Bios shouldn't be limited to flattering material. On the other hand I'd be against spending lots of text on it, given that it doesn't bear much on Frege's impact on history. --Trovatore 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that this fact was relevant to mention; as Trovatore mentions, this is a biographical page rather than a philosophical page. Probably best to limit it only to a sentence, however. I'm also not sure whether the diaries in which he mentions such views have ever been published - Dummett refers to them in his Introduction, and says that (at the time he was writing, at least) they had been explicitly left out of Frege's published diaries. --Joth (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I just edited the section, changing "he later became known as an antisemite" to "he is known to have held antisemitic views", since there is no evidence that he was widely known during his time as an antisemite, nor is there evidence that these views developed only his later life. Furthermore, from what I've seen, it is doubtful as to how important these beliefs were to him, so I changed 'antisemite' to the less judgemental 'held antisemitical views'. --Joth (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  Beyond his antisemetic leanings, Frege also held some notably racist views. See the second sentence of his Grundlagen for a minor example that comes to mind (http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Frege,Gottlob/Frege,%20Gottlob%20-%20The%20Foundations%20of%20Arithmetic%20%281953%29%202Ed_%207.0-2.5%20LotB.pdf, pg 24). There are better ways to substantiate his racism than that, I'm sure - just logging it here in case somebody thinks it should be integrated into the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.173 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently Frege's protoaryan views are only discussed in the context of his diary.  If they have been expressed elsewhere, particularly his major publications, then our page should certainly make a note of that, so feel free to add it.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Err emm

message: Charles Saunders Peirce used a notation  for implication that reminds me of the two-dimensional notation used by Frege in the Begriffsschrift. Is anything known about a possible influence of Peirce on Frege's notation? Leibniz 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Begriffsschrift notation and Peirce

message: I have to say I find the section header "Sinn and Bedeutung" to be a bit jarring, switching as it does from German to English to German in the space of three words. How about changing it to "Sense and denotation" (note capitalization), if we mean the Fregean concepts, or "Sinn und Bedeutung", if we mean the paper by that title? (By the way, I've always heard "denotation" rather than "reference"). --Trovatore 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Denotation, reference, sense, signification, these have all been used. The real problem is that Ebglish does not have two, subtly different, words for sense. for example, in good Italian translations, this is rendered "senso e significato" (which are really synonymous just like the German sinn and bedeutung). Frege's beuteuting is neither denotation (denotazione) nor reference (riferimento) but a technical distinction which he introduced between synonynous terms to sever his purpose and not to be confused with denotation or references. Sense and signification is the best version, I think. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sinn and Bedeutung"

message: It would be nice to get a summary of Frege's definition of a number and the Julius Caesar problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.160.146.253 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number? 

message: This article has now been reviewed by the review team and will be on this DVD release.  The "pass" template was added by mistake in place of the nomination template, but now it has officially passed.  Walkerma 02:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 0.7

message: The French wiki reports the following source noting Frege's admiration for Hitler: Roger Schmit, Recension du livre de Lothar Kreiser, Gottlob Frege : Leben-Werk-Zeit, Hamburg, 2001, Archives de philosophie, 2001, 4, 64 . Tkuvho (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am reading that right it is referring to an article by Roger Schmit which is in fact a review of a book by Lothar Kreiser.  I presume anything Schmit asserts about Frege in the context is taken from Kreiser.  From the look of it, even though the review is in French, the book being reviewed is in German.  It would be preferable to take the quote from Kreiser directly if you want to go that route.  I checked Amazon, and there doesn't appear to be a translation of Kreiser into English.  It is looking to me like Kenny, Sluga, and Dummett are good English sources to look through.  I checked the German article to see if Kreiser was quoted, and, unsurprisingly, Hitler isn't mentioned.  Ditto for the Dutch article.  I'm not saying it isn't true, only that I can't find the Kreiser quote.  Ekwos (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The biography by Kreiser is on google books. It has been very well received as far as I can see. Hitler is mentioned on pages 14 (on all Freges: Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel mentioned in connection to Hitler), not mentioned at all (only in the index): pages 597-8, 600, which debate Frege's political beliefs after 1918: :de:Heinrich Scholz knew about them early on, etc.; in his cure, at the Kaltwasseranstalt Frege reads a Ludendorff article, and agrees that marxism (SPD!) be eradicated and should not be allowed to take part in the political life in Germany (Deutschlands Erneuerung, No. 4, 1924); All parlamentarism in fact is non-German. 598, 600, 623 not shown by google books; Hitler mentioned, it seems, by Frege, in connection with the Hitler-trial (re: 1923 Sturm auf die Feldherrenhalle by Hitler and Ludendorff). Kreiser says, Frege did NOT put too much hope on Hitler, he seems to have been all for the aims of the Putsch, but highly critical of the actual 1923 debacle.--Radh (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, Frege is an admirer of Ludendorff, reads his article, and agrees with it; agrees with the aims of Hitler's putsch, but not with the method of execution.  An introverted academic, in short.  Tkuvho (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Putsch was a dismal failure and the pie-in-the-sky dilettantes in this case were Hitler and Ludendorff. Google only offers glimpses for Frege's remarks on the Hitler-Ludendorff Putsch, but he was critical of its execution.--Radh (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sounding like he hated the new government and admired anybody with the guts to try to overthrow it.  His admiration for Hitler being admiration for someone who also hated the government and was willing to take action in that direction.  Admittedly that last bit is my OR, but it is looking more reasonable to not call him a Nazi and that his admiration of Hitler was limited and may not have included agreeing with all of Hitler's positions.  Ekwos (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frege's admiration for Hitler 

message: As the pages available at the google book link don't include the actual page being referred to in the reference, I've removed it from the reference.  The point of a reference is to confirm that the passage isn't made up, and the google book fails to do this.  Ekwos (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google books link 

message: Radh: your comment about Dummett is interesting.  In what sense exactly is he a follower of Frege?  I always associated Dummett with an extreme form of intuitionism.  Unlike Errett Bishop, he rejects the completed infinity, even of the integers.  In this sense, he is more of a direct descendant of Brouwer rather than Frege.  Has the logicist school had a strong influence on Dummett?  Tkuvho (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only thinking of philosophy. Maybe follower is too strong a word, but D. stresses the role of Frege more than any other and published a lot about him. D. writes somewhere that he was very engaged in the fight against racism against Westafricans in Britain in the 1960s, so it is even more understandable that he did not take Frege's remarks lightly.--Radh (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the Dummett page I see that I was being a bit slow; he seems to be one of the main authorities on Frege, apart from the issue of being a follower or not.  It would be good to amplify the information found there.  What exactly did Dummett get from Frege, and how does it fit with his anti-realist profile?  Tkuvho (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That also belongs in the Dummett article.  It is interesting when I want to know about Dummett to know what he got from Frege.  It makes no sense, when I want to know about Frege, that Dummett got some things from him.  However, perhaps we can put this and the Dummett quote in the Dummett article and add some link here saying people interested in Frege might be interested in Dummett?  This is all starting to sound like people want to add Dummett info to the Frege article because they don't think anyone will ever bother to go to the Dummett article, so adding it there is like dropping it into a black hole.  Ekwos (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dummett

message: I've removed this:
The 1924 diary has been published.Gottfried Gabriel, Wolfgang Kienzler (editors): Gottlob Freges politisches Tagebuch. In: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, vol. 42, 1994, pp. 1057-98. Introduction by the editors on pp. 1057-66. This article has been translated into english, in: Inquiry, vol. 39, 1996, pp. 303-342.. 
This is not the right way to do this.  It would be better to put a direct reference to the published diary in the primary sources section.  I'm trying to figure out whether the given reference is the publication of the diary, or excerpts from the diary published elsewhere.  If anyone knows the answer, chime in.  Ekwos (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, as near as I can tell the article is the publication of the diary, so I've added that to primary references.  Ekwos (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I take that back it looks like Menzler-Trott is the publication of the diary.  Ekwos (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I'm seeing what look like two redactions of the diary:  Menzler-Trott, and Gabriel.  Are they the same?  Different?  If they're the same, we can whittle things down to the one that appears to have been a book.  Ekwos (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain about this either, but the article in the DZfPh (once the East-German journal of philosophy) is everywhere cited as being the first publication of the diary. And it also has been translated.--Radh (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern is that I don't know if they are in fact both complete versions of the diary from that period, or if some selection was made, and if selection was made, if different selections were made.  However, regarding making the point of Frege's views for the present article, probably either does the same job.  Should we cut the references down to just the one that has been translated?  Ekwos (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this would be the most practical solution. --Radh (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've removed Menzler-Trott.  Ekwos (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diary 

message: Okay, how about this for a compromise on the Dummett quote.  I say we contextualize it.  We lead in to the political section (which perhaps should be renamed the "diary" section) with something like the following:
Frege's published philosophical writings were of a very technical nature and divorced from practical issues, so much so that Frege scholar Dummett when reading his diaries could be "shocked... blah blah blah."
?  Ekwos (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal of compromise is helpful, but I don't see what we gain by adding the material on "technical nature", and the claim of "divorced" may be WP:OR.  At any rate, this addition merely lengthens the sentence.  We can let the reader decide for himself why it was exactly that Dummett was shocked.  Change of title is fine.  How about "His diary and politics"? Tkuvho (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting for your proposed compromise.  I'm not going along with what you've been proposing thus far.  And I'm still waiting for you to explain what your position contributes to the article.  At least what I proposed makes the quote something about Frege rather than something about Dummett.  Anyway, don't bother posting unless you have something positive to contribute, either in the form of a compromise or explanation.  Or just alert the higher ups to settle things.  Ekwos (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dummett Quote Compromise

message: It might be useful to include more of the history of others' appreciation of Frege, 
* from ignorance (initial) 
* to over-zealous promotion (Russell & Dummett & Per Martin-Löf, slighting Charles Sanders Peirce and Ernst Schröder) 
* to contemporary balance (Jaakko Hintikka), imho. 
Such intellectual historiography is common in other articles. (In such a section, discussions of the anti-semitism and reaction of Frege would be more natural.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea.  The starting point of course is Peano's "discovery" of Frege.  There is an illuminating piece on this by Gillies in Revolutions in mathematics.  Go ahead and give it a try!  Tkuvho (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, folks. I'm no expert on the subject, but Hilary Putnam wrote about the issue of priority versus actual influence (Frege and Peirce). Putnam, Hilary (1982), "Peirce the Logician", Historia Mathematica 9, 290–301. Reprinted, pp. 252–60 in Putnam (1990), Realism with a Human Face, Harvard. Excerpt with article's last five pages: Eprint. See Charles Sanders Peirce#Mathematics of logic for a summary (in that section's third paragraph). Also, Irving Anellis wrote about Russell on Peirce: Anellis, Irving H. (1995), "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced: How Charles Peirce and Bertrand Russell Viewed Each Other's Work in Logic, and an Assessment of Russell's Accuracy and Role in the Historiography of Logic", Modern Logic 5, 270–328. Arisbe Eprint. The Tetrast (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuing my stalking of The Tetrast (among others) (*LOL* as the kids say) and my  monitoring of this page, I would second the recommendation of the article by Anellis, which is a very detailed study indeed; if my memory is correct, Anellis may have started with Frege in earlier articles, and has moved to Peirce's role in mathematical logic, lately. Also, Putnam is always interesting; Putnam contributes another discussion in his long foreword to Logic and the Nature of Things, Peirce's (1898??) lectures at Harvard. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalking, yikes! Don't get worried folks, Tkuvho invited me to comment here, and Kiefer was already here. Kiefer, I didn't quite get the sturm und drang at your link till I read it carefully, now that's really yikes! Anyway, thanks for the laudation there, and your edits at the articles I work on have rocked. Anyway, I have Reasoning and the Logic of Things but haven't read Putnam's intro yet. Not that I'm about to write anything in this Frege wiki - I (and others) know my limits. The Tetrast (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I've found that there is some attempt in the scientific articles to try to tone the influence part down to people the subject had direct contact with (otherwise there might be no end to influence).  Frege's review of Husserl's early book on arithmetic (?) accusing him of psychologism might be of interest in that regard.  Obviously Frege and Russell had more direct contact.  There might have been some contact with Carnap if I'm not confusing things.  Peirce and Schroeder might be interesting if we keep in mind that the largest part of Frege's contribution to logic is the formalization that came with the Begriffschrift (although this is obscured by the fact that we basically now use a formalization based on Hilbert and Russell's simplifications).  I don't think Peirce and Schroeder had done much in the direction of a formalized symbolic system.  Ekwos (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception by later philosophers and logicians 

message: This new comment is interesting but as yet unsourced.  Do you have a source for this? Tkuvho (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Frege appears mostly to have encouraged Wittgenstein to leave for England :) Tkuvho (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it is even clear that Frege knew Wittgenstein was of Jewish descent. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frege encouraging to Wittgenstein 

message: The Sluga quote (about Frege being an admirer of Ludendorf and Hitler) is criticized by Mendelsohn in his translation of Frege's diaries (published 1996 in Inquiry). He writes that "(...)the very recent (1993) work of Hans Sluga, and his brief
description of the diary is quite misleading." And he further elaborats on the comment in the footnotes. It might be relevant, since the entire section is rather thin on information and presents the quote uncritically.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.36.197 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some details would be appreciated.  Certainly if Mendelsohn's work is reliable, his critique of Sluga should be mentioned.  Which Mendelsohn is this?  Tkuvho (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading quote in 1927 diary section 

message: Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)? 
::(See also the 독일의-Wikipedia's Drittes Reich (Frege) -
::::"In dem Aufsatz Der Gedanke des deutschen Philosophen und Mathematikers Gottlob Frege (1918) bezeichnet der Ausdruck Drittes Reich einen Bereich der Realität, in dem die nach seiner Auffassung objektiven Gedanken angesiedelt sind:
::::Die Gedanken sind weder Dinge der Außenwelt noch Vorstellungen. Ein drittes Reich muß anerkannt werden. Was zu diesem gehört, stimmt mit den Vorstellungen darin überein, daß es nicht mit den Sinnen wahrgenommen werden kann, mit den Dingen aber darin, daß es keines Trägers bedarf, zu dessen Bewußtseinsinhalte es gehört. So ist z. B. der Gedanke, den wir im pythagoreischen Lehrsatz aussprachen, zeitlos wahr, unabhängig davon, ob irgendjemand ihn für wahr hält. Er bedarf keines Trägers. Er ist wahr nicht erst, seitdem er entdeckt worden ist, wie ein Planet, schon bevor jemand ihn gesehen hat, mit andern Planeten in Wechselwirkung gewesen ist.[1] 
::::Mit dem Argument, dass es andernfalls keine Intersubjektivität geben könne, postuliert Frege neben dem Reich der subjektiven Vorstellungen und dem der "objektiv-wirklichen" physischen Gegenstände noch ein "drittes Reich": das der "objektiv-nichtwirklichen" Gedanken. Sie werden vom Bewusstsein erfasst, aber nicht hervorgebracht."
* I don't speak German, but "Third Realm" and "Drittes Reich" both redirect to Nazi Germany. 
* There is often a problem when Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., are translated by lighter weight thinkers (i.e., by anyone). 
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is WP:RS. 
* According to reliable secondary source Gideon Rosen in the "Abstract Objects" article at SEP, "Frege concludes that numbers are neither external ‘concrete’ things nor mental entities of any sort. ... He says that they (thoughts - by which Gideon Rosen means the senses of declarative sentences, apparently with Rosen using Frege's highly technical meaning of "sense") belong to a ‘third realm’ distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness... As this new ‘realism’ was absorbed into English speaking philosophy, the traditional term ‘abstract’ was enlisted to apply to the denizens of this ‘third realm’." 
::Note: Rosen does not provide citations in support of this particular SEP:OR "encyclopedia" article statement, re what he calls "absorption" and "enlistment", likely because of a lack of historical scholarly works to rely on re the etymology of "abstract object". But we at Wikipedia have higher standards than SEP when it comes to OR.
I propose a disabiguation page. But having inadvertently stepped from writing WP:BLPs into trying to edit the Alternative medicine article, I assume per User:IRWolfie's comments at alt med, that it is best to first propose things in a small way at talk pages, before editing on any articles involving religion, racist groups, evolution, alt meds, and articles about topics involving groups of irrational people that are still in existence. 
Discussion is here ParkSehJik (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As per User:Trovatore's comments, "third realm" is merely an incorrect translation of the German.  Third Reich is the correct translation.  I have seen some modern philosophers discussing the idea of "third realm" in Frege's sense, so redirect to Frege is reasonable since the term has some currency.  Tkuvho (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should redirect for "[[Drittes Reich]]" and "[[Third Realm]]" be to [[Abstract object]] (per [[Frege]]), or to [[Nazi Germany]] (per [[Hitler]])?  

message: The following statement appears in the "Work as a logician" section:"It is frequently noted that Aristotle's logic is unable to represent even the most elementary inferences in Euclid's geometry..." No citation is given. This statement does not take into account the contrary opinion expressed by John Stuart Mill in his article "Is the syllogism a petitio principii?",viz. "The whole of euclid, for example, might be thrown without difficulty into a series of syllogisms, regular in mood and figure." (Readings on Logic", Copi & Gould, 1964, p.100, citing Mill's "A System of Logic", 1874, pp.126-157.Bobblond (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Mill actually went and did it, I'd go with the consensus of modern logicians that it can't be done. 71.59.210.202 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARISTOTLE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EUCLID? 

message: This article makes a bit much of a diary written by a man in his 70's in the last couple years of his life.  It appears the article is trying to use these very late views to color the man's entire life.  It is entirely possible that Frege was losing some of his mental faculties by the time the diary was written.  Indeed, the diary section indicates that Frege was much more liberal when he was younger.  Coloring Frege's life by his diary is a bit like summing up your grandfather's life by what he was saying in the last couple years of his life when he started spending all his time watching Fox News.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.211.17 (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1924 Diary 

message: Hi, 
I see that "Grundlagen ..." has its own article, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundations_of_Arithmetic ,
but I couldn't see any link to it where it is mentioned in this article. There is a link way down at "Important Works", which I first thought was a link to the text/book/work itself. Perhaps give it the more prominent place, too?
T88.89.219.147 (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done did it. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grundlagen article link? 

message: Older texts in German use "Ueber" instead of "Über." The practice apparently started dying out in the 1890s. So the correct titles of Frege's works are as follows: Ueber eine geometrische Darstellung der imaginären Gebilde in der Ebene , "Über Sinn und Bedeutung" (H. Hermes et al., Nachgelassene Schriften und Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel / Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel: Zweiter Band der "Nachgelassenen Schriften und Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel", Meiner Verlag, 2013, p. xii: SB), "Ueber Begriff und Gegenstand" (H. Hermes et al. 2013, p. xii: BuG), and "Über die Grundlagen der Geometrie" (H. Hermes et al. 2013, p. xii: GLG). --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Older texts use Ueber in Latin script, because umlauts were uncommon in Latin-script-based typestting, but in the then more common Fraktur script, umlauts were used. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ueber

message: Freges Mother's parents were Johann Heinrich Siegfried Bialloblotzky and Auguste Amalia Maria Ballhorn. So even if her father was polish, which is unlikely in view of his name Johann Heinrich Siegfried, Freges mother would be half polish, half german. Thats why it is probably wrong to claim she was exclusively of Polish origin  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malzkorn (talk • contribs) 17:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother of Polish descent 

message: Is he? He's certainly one for philosophy. Cake (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a contributor to the philosophy of mathematics and influenced Bertrand Russell there. This is I know considered separate from mathematics. (It's not the same as mathematics, but "separate from" is a bit much, actually :) - still, not your words, possibly-misremebered someone or other or other else's... ) ELSchissel (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Major figure in mathematics"

message: According to German Wikipedia (:de:Christian Gottlob Frege) his great-grandfather (C.G. Frege) was a well-known banker (the article lists the genealogy, and mentions that Virginia Livia Gebhardt (Livia Frege) married one of CG Frege's grandchildren, which makes sense of a coincidence...)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELSchissel (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: Hi, in the "Important works" section, the works on Logic etc. are presented with the original German titles + EN translation; the works on Philosophy etc. with EN titles and then DE original titles; and finally the works on Geometry etc. again with the original German titles with EN translations. Is there a "method to this madness"? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language in bibliography 

message: There does not seem to a consensus of sources that support this claim. Many other sources consider Russell, Godel, etc. to be more influential. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the claim that he is considered the greatest logician since Aristotle 

message: Philosophy of language in the twentieth century 23.88.217.103 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy of language in the twentieth century