Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Soft Service: "FTP DOWNLOAD >>> NEW CRACKED PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE"
- Previous message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:44:45 -0500
"Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:cvr36r$mmk$3@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> writes:
> >"Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:cvqb6e$cvs$4@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
>
> >> You seem to be assuming that the notion of "curved surface" is prior
> >> to geometry. Mathematically speaking, it is the other way around.
> >> Incidently, the surface of a cylinder is not curved (in the
mathematical
> >> sense of "curved").
>
> >Please stop assigning assumptions to me; you have rarely gotten any of
them
> >right.
>
> Okay, I will stop ascribing assumptions.
>
> >My question is whether or not Euclid's geometry assumes straight -- not
> >curved -- lines connecting all points of the geometric shapes. If it
does,
> >then his geometry is incomplete, since it doesn't cover curved lines.
>
> If your assumptions are correct, as you imply, yet you spout nonsense
> as above, does that make you a deliberate liar?
What in the world are you talking about? I asked you to stop saying "You
seem to be assuming that ... " because in this thread every time you have
said "You seem to be assuming that X" you come up with an assumption that
has no relation to anything I actually assumed. I said nothing about what I
did assume or if they are correct. So what in the hell are you going on
about?
- Next message: Soft Service: "FTP DOWNLOAD >>> NEW CRACKED PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE"
- Previous message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|