> Keynes, in an impressive show of administrative skill and sleight of hand, made the 21-year-old Ramsey a fellow of King’s College at a time when only someone who had studied there could be a fellow. (Ramsey had done his degree at Trinity).
Wow, seriously, that's the way we ought to treat people who "demolish" our ideas :-)
Edit: I should probably say that I have been trying to behave like this for a few years already at my scale, my point is that this is inspiring.
Oh, and there exist people who are so toxic on top of being blunt that I probably wouldn't work with them even if it gave me a 5% chance to make the worlds first commercial viable fusion reactor.
here is the review: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2927587
"An Examination of the Fundamental Reasons Why Frank Ramsey Failed in His Reviews of J M Keynes's a Treatise on Probability"
You will hear what he thinks about Bertrand Russells remark on the small size of men in relation to the universe, truth and probability, mountain walking and even how many hours he worked every day +++! :-)
Interesting. In the preface to the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein credits the Neo-Ricardian economist Pierro Sraffa with something like the same influence. I'd be curious to know what led Misak to this conclusion.
Also, I really like the simplicity of the proof of the Theorem of Friends and Strangers. You can show someone the proof with two colored pens in 10 minutes. But at the same time, it uses some interesting proof tools: contradiction, the pidgeonhole principle, creating a boundary by counterexample (ie that R(3, 3) must be greater than 5). So I like the Friends and Strangers proof for its elegance and how fun it is to show people, and I like Ramsey's proof because it captures some of the fun of the R(3, 3) case while proving something much, much more difficult.
How is anyone not immediately repelled by this style of writing? Seriously, though.