Talk:Hilary Putnam

message: The description (specification) of the Turing machine does not match the implementation.  The description states that it "writes out the sequence '111' after scanning three blank squares and then stopping".  The actual machine as written scans three squares in sequence, writing a '1' in any blank square - to ensure the sequence '111' - and then stops.
Trivially, the description as cited can be re-written as: it scans three blank squares, it stops, then it writes out the sequence '111'.  This, of course, is ridiculous - it does nothing after it stops.  Equally trivially, this flaw can be fixed by putting a comma after the word "squares" and changing "stopping" to "stops".
A Turing machine to perform the corrected specification would be:
:
State	Input B                           	Input 1
1    	move right; go to state 2         	move right
2    	move right; go to state 3         	move right; go to state 1
3    	move right; go to state 4         	move right; go to state 1
4    	write 1; move right; go to state 5	write 1; move right; go to state 5
5    	write 1; move right; go to state 6	write 1; move right; go to state 6
6    	write 1; halt                     	write 1; halt
If you see "write" and "move" as separate actions [which is not the way I've done it all these years, but is certainly one way of doing it] then states 4 and 5 both need to be split into two states.
Also trivially, this is "one way" a Turing machine can be visualized.
Why don't I "be bold" and make the suggested changes?  First off, I don't know whether the original author intended to have a correct specification for the given machine or a correct machine for the given specification.  Second off, it seems that this article generates strong feelings for some, so I thought I'd socialize this change first. -- Jsdy (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I was wrong about the strong feelings.  --  Jsdy (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turing Machine description / implementation 

message: *
I think mentioning the conference was an ok addition on informational grounds.  I won't unrevert but maybe someone else can put it back if they think it's appropriate.  69.111.194.167 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  85th birthday conference 

message: The current passage reads:
The first formulation of such a functionalist theory was put forth by Putnam himself. This formulation, which is now called "machine-state functionalism", was inspired by analogies noted by Putnam and others between the mind and theoretical "Turing machines" capable of computing any given algorithm.
But algorithms can't be computed. In simple language, algorithms are recipes, lists of action to take. They don't have to compute anything (although digital or analogue algorithms, and especially those used in digital computers often compute computable functions). One common counter-example of non-computing algorithm is a "bucket of rain water" algorithm. It's a recipe which says that you have to put out bucket every day and collect it in the evening, then measure the rain water in the bucket. It's perfectly fine, as an algorithm, but it doesn't compute anything. If this example is not enough, consider an algorithm of an infinite loop - what does it compute?
However it is true that Turing machines are computing machines, they don't compute algorithms, they execute algorithms. Thus I'd suggest that the sentence be changed to say that the Turing machine computes a computable function (or simply function, if that's too technical), or that it executes an (digital) algorithm (again, digital classification may be too technical). Also, there's no reason for Turing machine to be quoted, it's a mathematical object just like sine curve or equilateral triangle. :) 79.176.121.21 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algorithms are not computed 

message: I have read this article several times and it contain great material, but I believe that two little text is about Putnam's pragmatic turn from early 80s to present day. Most of the article is dedicated to his early writings.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Putnam's pragmatic turn?

message: I found that Note 9 did not provide the article.  Searching for the material I found both a pdf for it at
http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_2908.pdf
as well as a working link in the connected Wikipedia page 'Brain in a Vat'
http://books.google.it/books?id=h3g3GicFWGoC&hl=en&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Being a newbie, I did not feel confident to make this change myself.
Codon3 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link in Note 9 for Putnam's 'Brain in a Vat'  

message: This section is clear, but it does not explain to the layperson why Putnam's argument is novel or important when applied to the Mind/Body problem, whereas it is obviously not when applied to pure physics problems, for example phase transitions. For example any physical system which behaves identically to the 3D Ising problem will show the same qualitatative behavior (and universality in general). obviously a person's brain, and their "mind" and general identity remain essentially the same despite the fact that all the molecules in their body are continuously replaced, so their physical Identity is never the same. Even if one were to take the view that one molecule is literally identical to another, so in a sense the molecularly renewed person remains physically the same, this would not imply that 1 extra molecule made the person mentally as well as physically different. 
For all practical purposes one block of ice is the same as another of similar size. , and qualitatively quite different from the same molecules as liquid water. I don't see the difference from me today and me yesterday, or why Putnam's argument is important or substantially different.Paulhummerman (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Realizability 

message: " he moved to Harvard in 1965 with his wife, Ruth Anna Jacobs, who took a "
:But in the NYTimes obituary, she is identified as Ruth Anna Hall:  "Professor Putnam married Ruth Anna Hall, a philosopher who taught at Wellesley College, in 1962. ".  Her CV at Wellesley simply has her as R.A. Putnam.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABShippee (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife's maiden name:  Jacobs or Hall? 

message: It seems that toward the end of his life, he became somewhat religious.
https://forward.com/culture/14256/spiritual-encounters-of-a-philosopher-of-science-02570/
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/198578/remembering-hilary-putnam-harvard-philosopher-and-religious-jew
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/hilary-putnam-1926-2016_b_9457774.html
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/hilary-putnam-1926-2016-philosopher-sciences-late-life-return-his-native-judaism
Yaakovaryeh (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as an atheist 

message: Something I noticed glancing Putnam's page, was that some of his well known students Alva Noë and Ned Block were missing. I'd also make the recommendation of adding Block and McDowell to his influences, as he cited them as being big influences on him late in his career.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScreamingUrethra (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences/doctoral Students Additions 

message: :As a featured article this is to be "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". I read the article and found it a good read but sometimes things just "creep in" and we end up with link farming. 
:The "External links" section needs to be more involved when reviewing articles to include: ELPOINTS #3, links to avoid, and EL official, with a goal of  minimizing the number of links. I don't see that fifteen "External links" exactly follows along those lines so there needs to be some article incorporation or trimming. Otr500 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Hi article-watchers, I am starting a review of this article for WP:URFA/2020, a task force which looks at featured articles that were promoted before 2016. I have made some edits to the article during my review, and I hope others will review my edits to ensure I did not change the meaning of anything. I also have some questions below:
 
*The article says Putnam was born in Chicago and grew up in Paris, but does not mention when he moved to France. Do we know when this happened?
*"The Harvard administration considered these activities disruptive and attempted to censure Putnam, but two other faculty members criticized the procedures." Do we know which faculty members this was?
*Is encyclopedia.com the best source we can find for this information? I think there are more high-quality sources available.
*The life section seems to have lots of gaps, as there is very little information on his life in the 1980s and in the 2000s. I understand that there are other sections which address his theories and accomplishments, but I think this article needs to be organised chronologically; afterall, this is a biography article. 
*A similar problem to what is outlined above, some of Putnam's accomplishments do not include dates on when they were first published or gained widespread fame. For example, when was the "brain in a vat" thought experiment first proposed? When did he show that "there are many levels of the constructible hierarchy that add no subsets of the integers"? When were his theories, outlined in the "Philosophy of mathematics" section, first published?
*The references are in various styles. Can someone standardise the references for this article?
*I am surprised that there isn't a Legacy section. Are there any monuments, statues, roads, or awards named for this person? Any information on his legacy within different groups and places?
Those are just some initial thoughts, I look forward to doing a deeper when the above concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff since notice, issues unaddressed, new uncited text added; listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  02:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that the  issue is really a problem. There can be a "life ends at tenure" effect with academic biographies; once someone is established in a particular place and any kids are born, the only events that get documented are career events.  It's probably too early for statues and roads, but there may be awards or scholarships. I'll look into that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat to my surprise, I have found nothing of note in this regard. I was expecting at least a few things along the lines of a "Hilary Putnam Memorial Scholarship" or a "Hilary Putnam Lecture Series", but nothing like that has turned up yet. What's been named after Putnam have been arguments, which the article already talks about. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm concerned whether past talk page messages have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

text: How do we know this is his blog? SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @SandyGeorgia, did a quick search and managed to find this paper where he mentions the blog. It's on the first page so should be viewable from the preview even if you don't have access to the full paper. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps ... we might add that as a supplementary note to those citations as "proof" ... I can do it later, but for now am fuzzy-brained with COVID ... thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: His blog, so I added it to External links in such a way that it verifies our use of the blog as a source in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The "References" section was actually completely redundant with the footnoted citations enumerated in "Notes", so I cut it and renamed "Notes" to "References". XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine ... in the "olden days", that was sometimes done, and because that was the single worse FAC I ever experienced, I doubt anyone was worrying about that particular detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I am also concerned about the growing list of uncited info in the infobox; there is probably plenty more than seen in this recent diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there another list of his doctoral students somewhere, besides this? XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know; I have always found the idea of such a list in infoboxes troubling, because how do we know it's comprehensive?  My view is that unless there is independent coverage about them as notable that we can cite, we should leave them out. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

text: That infobox is a classic infobox nightmare. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather resentful over the existence of "influenced" and "influenced by" fields in infoboxes. All too often, that's too vague a concept to fit into a neatly tabular format. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Who will object if we delete the lot? SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I could understand if the entry were significant enough that it warranted a well-cited paragraph in the text, but not infobox material. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think of infoboxes as conceptually part of the lede, as they share the task of summarizing the text. Accordingly, my inclination would be to remove everything from the infobox that the text does not explicitly cover. We're not a database like the Mathematics Genealogy Project. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: BINGO. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get around to this in the next few days if nobody objects (or beats me to it). XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi, not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this or if it should be put in the FAR page, but I have some concerns about the sourcing in the article that could be a fruitful avenue to improving the article and ensuring it meets the FA criteria. I recently rewrote the philosophy of mathematics section of the article because it contained some pretty large errors. For example, it presented a form of the indispensability argument which is due to Mark Colyvan and attributed it to Putnam. However, Putnam in multiple places distanced himself from that form of the argument (some details on this can be seen at Quine–Putnam indispensability argument#Continued development of the argument). It also said he defended a clause in that form of the argument which claims we should have ontological commitment to only the entities of science. But, according to Putnam himself, he never endorsed anything like that in his life (see here). I think the main reason why these errors were able to survive in the article is because they were cited to primary sources. This is obviously in violation of the requirement that interpretations of primary sources require reliable secondary sources, otherwise it is basically just original research. Looking over the article, it seems that there may be some other areas that rely solely on interpretations of primary sources without being backed up by a secondary source. However, unlike the indispensability argument, I personally do not have the knowledge on Putnam or the secondary literature on his work to fix these instances. Therefore, I'm writing here to suggest that a good way of improving the article would be to find places in the article which rely only on primary sources and finding secondary sources to back them up, to make sure that the text is genuinely verifiable and not an incorrect interpretation of a primary source. Hope this is useful to those currently working on the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] review 

message: By the way: the story of Progressive Labor inside SDS is interesting in its own right, not only at the end when it must have been seen as the sane alternative to Weather. Read about this story some time ago, perhaps in "Radical America" (it's all online). --Ralfdetlef (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLP 

message: Logical Positivism was the leading philosophy in much of the US (Quine, Sellars, etc.), but in the 1950 in Europe Sartre, Heidegger and Wittgenstein were the big guys.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reichenbach and Positivism 

message: اهتمام Adam hash my (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  تطوير الذات