Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Catherine Woodgold" <an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:di910k$2mca$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Tim Tyler (tim@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> > > In a discussion of relativity, you would probably not argue
> > > that c doesn't necessarly represent the speed of light, and
> > > that it might just as well represent the mass of an object.
> >
> > You've got me wrong. I'm exactly the sort of person
> > who might do so. :-) Furthermore, I probably have used "c"
> > to mean something else in a relativistic calculation
> > (and then realized the possible ambiguity afterwards,
> > but was able to keep it straight, possibly by using
> > capital C for the speed of light, and probably got the
> > right answer anyway.)
> >
> > Here I go. I'm about to prove you wrong (about whether
> > I would make such an argument or not):
> > "c" doesn't necessarily represent the speed of light,
> > even in a relativistic calculation. As long as the
> > person writing out the argument makes it clear at
> > the top of the page what "c" represents on that page,
> > it's OK. Symbols are inherently arbitrary.
>
> Words are symbols too. So their meaning is arbitrary as well.
> We can all adopt Humpty Dumpty' position.
>
> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
> `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
>
> `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean
> so many different things.'
>
> `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master --
> that's all.'
>
> http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm
>
> I agree with Tim. Successful communication is more likely if
> both parties adhere to received conventions as to what their
> words and symbols mean.
Catherine stated: As long as the person writing out
the argument makes it clear at the top of the page
what "c" represents on that page, it's OK.
> Which is not to say that Humpty Dumpty is not correct as a
> matter of pure philosophy. But his position is not very
> practical.
You missed the point.
Jim
.
- References:
- Underestimating 'r'
- From: Tim Tyler
- Underestimating 'r'
- Prev by Date: Re: A briefly summarizing sample of Science's ever increasing support for the concEPT of actention modules (of any ASS)
- Next by Date: Re: Ratchets against devolutionary speciation (was: Can evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
