Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:39:17 GMT
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:53:07 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta
<bilotta78@hotpop.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:31:47 -0600, Albert Wagner wrote:
>
>> Oh. OK. Thanks, Wolf. Imaginary numbers I understand. I
>> wonder why he injected *shiver*.
>
>Because the idea of imaginary numbers (think about it: numbers whose square
>was negative!) seemed appallingly absurd to many. Just like the idea of
>negative numbers. Or of irrational numbers. In just the same way, you
>refuse the idea of transfinite (this is the proper term, actually) numbers.
You sure for a change? Actually you're always sure most especially
when you're wrong. I wonder if the term transfinite might mean
transcending definition? Just a thought since you're so sure the
proper term is not infinite. Kinda makes me wonder though if infinite
is not the proper term why everyone seems to have a definition for it.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
