Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> writes:
>Lester Zick said:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:37:41 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
>> <nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> The successor axiom for one, Bob, which relies on addition in the form
>> of incrementation and a regressor axiom, which presumably relies on
>> ...
>I have to agree with Lester on this one.
Perhaps you are as confused as Lester.
Arithmetic arises out of counting. Counting requires only the
successor operation. It does not require addition. The introduction
of integer addition and subtraction come later, and are defined in
terms of counting (i.e. in terms of the successor operation).
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading