I'm looping through GEB right now, and the "Self-Ref and Self-Rep" chapter is easily one of my favorites among several other gems. While Hofstadter includes a quirky computer Quine example using a FlooP-like language, the chapter primarily revolves around the fascinating biological counterparts.

As a programmer, I couldn’t resist diving into the rabbit hole of computer counterparts myself. I ended up writing a blog series on Quines that explores the weird and wonderful world of self-reference, self-healing, Quine-chaining, and how to write more such strange loops, listed below, from scratch!

1. Quine: Self replicating computer programs

2. Intron: Junk or not Junk, that is the quine-tion

3. QuineRelay: Birth of the Quine serpent

4. MultiQuine: Weaving the web of Quines

5. Radiation hardened Quine: Whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stronger

6. PolyQuine: The rosetta stone of computing

7. Quine-spirations: To infinity and beyond

Do checkout the series here: https://darshan.hashnode.dev/series/quines

https://preview.redd.it/i1gs7eczspzd1.jpg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=166a8f5c402ca941aba6cf0dfeee058cd6286a7d

Are all editions the same page size? (looking for a larger page size if possible. )

Just started reading GEB for the first time in the 20 anniversery version. in it's unique introduction, specifically in the "From Letter to Pamphlet to Seminar" chapter, Hofstadter mentions being interested in the Yum Kipper War. As an Israeli this sparked my curiosity on Hofstadter connection to the war and its interest in it, but a quick google search didn't yield any information about Hofstadter's weird comment on the war (which was a bit out of context) so i thought to ask here about the meaning behind it. Thanks in advance to all helpers

So in chapter V, starting at page 141, we are introduced to the concept of recursivity. No problem understanding that, quite a simple concept. On page 150 we have an exemplification of recursivity with the diagrams D and H. No problem understanding that either. However, on page 152 are presented the functions D(n) = n - D(D(n - 1)) and H(n) = n - H(H(H(n - 1))), that are told to be the ones at the origin of the D and H diagrams. How is that? Can someone help me visualize it or understand it, because I don't see it as clear as it would seem to be for the author. Thank you for your help.

I am currently reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach", and in the book author makes the following statement:

I think the Tarski reproduction of the [liar's] paradox inside TNT points the way to a deeper understanding of the nature of the [liar's] paradox in English. -- GEB, p. 584

Here TNT, is a formal system of arithmetic similar to Peano arithmetic. The way I see it, this sentence is wrong, no? According to Tarski, the truth predicate is not definable and the liar's paradox definition depends on it. So it is too not definable inside TNT.

So, one of my challenges with GEB is a lack of specialized knowledge in the key fields.

However! You know how the Tortoise and Achilles dialogues are inspired in part by Carroll's What the Tortoise Said to Achilles? After several years of on-and-off effort, I have finally grasped the concept of the infinite regress expressed in that work.

Recently reading "What Is Mathematics?" by Richard Courant introduced me to the concept of mathematical logic. Still rather wobbly on it, but now I know that it exists at least.

FWIW I'm 63 and will shortly be commencing my fifth attempt at GEB. I hope to get at least halfway through this time before becoming hopelessly bewildered.

Does anyone have any recommendations for books or other media with the similar clever wit, wordplay and exploration of abstract and metaphysical concepts seen in the dialogues - Something akin to a whole book of the little harmonic labyrinth

How can a theorem G talk about itself, when in order to do that we need to know its Gödel code, which depends on… itself? Wouldn’t that create an infinite recursion like the GOD acronym?

I've just started the book and have a question about the MU puzzle.

I read elsewhere that it's >!unsolvable!< However I originally thought I had found >!a way to do it!< I'm sure I must have misunderstood one of the rules (namely rule 2).

My solution was : MI MII (2) MIII (2) MU (3)

So the way I understood rule 2 there's nothing about the string chosen to be doubled having to be the whole string after M.

Seeing the other responses and solutions around the web I get that this is wrong, or at least not how everyone else interpreted it, but it's bugging me that I can't find that explicit rule anywhere in the books explanation of the puzzle.

Am I alone? What did I miss?

I've been thinking of starting GEB but I'm pretty slow, forgetful, and bad at math. Would I still be able to grasp everything?

How to read Gödel, Escher, Bach presentation by Scott Kim at Gathering 4 Gardner on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. Zoom link at https://www.gathering4gardner.org/com-2024-05-21/

This must be Bulgarian (full audiobook?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9eWqGGpNPs

(it surely sounds like Russian to me.)

The Russian title is: Гёдель, Ешер, Бах: Эта бесконечная гирлянда

--------- The [Escher, Bach] part is the same in Russian and Bulgarian.

I want to give this book as a gift to someone who's native laguage is russian. But I've been having a very difficult time finding a russian translation on the english speaking internet.

I have a feeling I'm missing something obvious but here goes: the RTN on page 136 that represents the FIBO function. It seems to say for n>2, FIBO(n) = (n-1)+(n-2). That would seem to mean that: FIBO(3)=2+1=3 FIBO(4)=3+2=5 5=4+3=7 6=9 7=11 etc In fact this would seem to be the same as 2n-3? What am I missing? This doesn't seem to reflect what the diagrams show in any particular way.

The Carroll dialogue 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles' is apparently about logic and the phenomenon of the infinite regression. That much I can say. The themes and possibly structure of this dialogue are significant to the themes and structure of GEB, which is something I suspect but cannot verify.

My question is this - can you direct me to any explanation° of the dialogue that would help me understand what the 'infinite regression' is and what role it plays in WtTStA?

Full disclosure: I have attempted GEB at least three times, but I keep finding new things that I need to learn to understand what Hofstadter is saying. This is just one of them.

°To emphasize the point, I am not asking for explanations from the readers of this question.

In GEB, near the end of chapter 3, there is a section titled ‘Primes as Figure Rather than Ground’. In that section the axiom xyDNDx is given. From this a rule is made: If xDNDy is a theorem, then so is xDNDxy.

Then the text says: “if you use the rule twice, you generate this theorem: ~~~~~DND~~~~~~~~~~~~.

What does it mean to “use the rule twice”? And how does one get 5DND12 from any of the existing rules or schema?

Assuming ~~~~~ is x, does that mean y is 7 dashes? If so, how did we get here by using the rule twice?

A paper(Thrush et al) tested LLMs on Self reference statements using a custom dataset called "I am a Strane Dataset" inspired by Douglas Hofstadter's "I am a Strange Loop". Abstract mentions GPT-4 is the only LLM that performs better than chance.