It was required reading for my Logics class in undergrad. Pretty sure it was also on the optionals (aka required) for my Set Theory class as well.

It's also pretty typically a part of History Of Mathematics and Philosophy of Mathematics courses.

▲

derrida 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No it's not.

No it wasn't.

And you did not read it.

EDIT: source: took logic as undergrad + wrote on the tractatus which required a lot of pre-reqs to understand. 0 chance a course at undergrad level ever assigns principia mathematica. I don't care if you went to yale or oxford or ecole normale ... 0 chance. Most charitable interepretation: some pages of it + was on a bibliography. not required reading.

if feel embarrassed, that is the consequence for lieing. There is such a thing as intellectual honesty.

▲

rramadass an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Well said.

Thanks for calling out these sort of posers and charlatans on HN. We should not tolerate these people if we are to discuss/argue/motivate interesting/hard subjects productively.

I automatically discount anybody on HN (until i have looked at their profile/comment history/any personal bio websites etc.) who claim they have read/studied a) Euclid's Elements b) Newton's Principia c) Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism d) Einstein's 1905 Annus Mirabilis papers. e) Principia Mathematica by Russell/WhiteHead f) Godel's Theorem g) Bourbaki's mathematics books etc. etc. They might have browsed it out of curiosity but that is not the same as reading/studying it.

Actual conceptual mathematics/science is intrinsically hard even ignoring the archaic language/notations.

As a good example; the Nobel-prize winning physicist S.Chandrasekhar wrote Newton's Principia for the Common Reader where he explains a subset of the principia (only dealing with gravitation) using modern notation and language. He himself found it quite hard and thus the "common reader" in the title is somebody who has had a good course in calculus and has the motivation to put forth the effort in understanding it.

	▲	eru 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Einstein's 1905 Annus Mirabilis papers seem like they easiest of the bunch to just read through. I just pulled up 'Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen', the one about Brownian motion, and read the whole thing. It's only 12 pages and fairly accessible; more prose than equations. (Of course, if you don't read German, you should get yourself a translation.) See https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstei... I don't think I'm smart enough to casually read and understand original works on General relativity, but the Annus Mirabilis work seems much simpler. The famous E=MC2 paper is only three pages. See https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstei... About Gödel: if you are interested in the theorems, and not necessarily their original presentation, you can get plenty of rigorous modern treatments. It's very common for mathematicians to work out simpler proofs and more appealing presentations of famous results over time. See https://dn721807.ca.archive.org/0/items/uber-formal-unentsch... if you want to give one of Gödel's work a go. It's only 26 pages. Footnote 48a is especially interesting. Overall the prose is crisp, but the notation is rather archaic to modern eyes. I agree with your general sentiment, and your heuristic in general.

▲

nimih 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Honestly, other than the length and tedious presentation, I don't really think the material in the Principia Mathematica is outside the reach of an advanced undergraduate. As a point of reference, MIT's capstone mathematical logic course[1] has a syllabus that requires at least as much mathematical maturity, and it wouldn't really surprise me that much to see it as an ancillary or excerpted text.

That said, even if the OP was assigned the text at some point as an undergraduate, I remain a bit doubtful it was actually read.

[1] https://cfreer.org/18.515/

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	TimorousBestie 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> As a point of reference, MIT's capstone mathematical logic course[1] has a syllabus that requires at least as much mathematical maturity, The textbooks they use in that course are written in modern notation and are accessible to a knowledgeable reader; neither can be said of the Principia Mathematica. The archaic syntax is a serious issue.

▲

mathisfun123 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm with you - I hate when people exaggerate their bonafides beyond all belief

	▲	derrida 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		LLMs giving some people way too much confidence to conceptually shoot from the hip hehe - “effort to refute bullshit is order of magnitude more than to refute it”.

▲

mathisfun123 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

link the syllabi for the classes

	▲	debo_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What if they link the axioms for the classes and leave it as an exercise to the reader to derive the syllabi?