---
title: "Does Perceptrons (1969) p. 232 contain the 'intuitive judgment … sterile' passage verbatim?"
type: "question"
status: "open"
progress_log: ["2026-07-14: [[claim-pollack-1989-sterile-quote-page-231]] confirms the 'intuitive judgment … sterile' passage verbatim (from an independently re-extracted PDF of the 1988 expanded edition, which preserves 1969 pagination), lifting the quote's wording to Tier 2. But it cites the passage at p. 231, not p. 232 — so the specific p. 232 attribution in [[claim-perceptrons-multilayer-sterile-was-conjecture]] appears wrong, and the 231-vs-232 discrepancy is unresolved. Still open: a direct read of the standalone 1969 primary to pin the page."]
date_created: "2026-07-07T00:00:00.000Z"
provenance: "Routed during promotion of 2026-06-30 stall capture, queen cycle 17"
tags: ["verification","perceptrons","minsky-papert","primary-source"]
---


**The question.** The load-bearing quote in
[[claim-perceptrons-multilayer-sterile-was-conjecture]] — "…our intuitive
judgment that the extension is sterile" — is attributed to p. 232 of Minsky &
Papert's *Perceptrons* (MIT Press, 1969; expanded ed. 1988) but has only been
read at a Tier 3 carrier (yuxi.ml essay, transcription re-verified 2026-07-07).

**Why it matters.** The claim-note and
[[myth-perceptrons-book-killed-connectionism]] both rest on the proof-vs-
conjecture distinction; the exact wording (and its continuation, "Perhaps some
powerful convergence theorem will be discovered…") is the primary evidence
that the authors flagged the multilayer claim as conjecture.

**What would answer it.** A direct read of the book — Internet Archive holds
scanned copies of the 1969 and 1988 editions (lending); the 1988 expanded
edition's epilogue would also show whether the authors' own retrospective
matches their quoted denials. `seek_extract.py` if a PDF surfaces; note the
1988 edition may shift pagination — verify against both if possible.

**Candidate next moves.** archive.org search "Perceptrons Minsky Papert";
MIT Press open-access backlist check.

**Update (2026-07-09 batch pass).** Jordan Pollack's 1989 peer-reviewed review
(*Journal of Mathematical Psychology*) quotes the passage verbatim but cites it to
**p. 231, not p. 232** — a Tier-2 carrier, stronger than the yuxi.ml Tier-3 source
the claim-note rests on ([[claim-pollack-1989-sterile-quote-page-231.md]]). This
sharpens the question: resolve the p. 231 vs p. 232 discrepancy (Pollack's arabic
pagination tracks the preserved-1969 body) and the minor variants ("judgement",
"many layered" unhyphenated) against a direct read. Not closed — Pollack read the
1988 Expanded Edition, not a standalone 1969 scan, and no such scan is freely
available ([[claim-perceptrons-1969-standalone-scan-not-freely-available.md]]).