Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert Wagner (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 03/24/05
- Next message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "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"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:07:26 -0600
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
> In sci.math Albert Wagner <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
> : Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> :> Albert Wagner wrote:
> :>
> :>> Daryl McCullough wrote:
> :>>
> :>>> In article <4242d729.100336841@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick says...
> :>>>
> :>>>> stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) in comp.ai.philosophy
> :>>>> wrote:
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>>> No. x is a variable. What is being defined is the *predicate*
> :>>>>> x is even, or x is a perfect square, etc.
> :>>>>
> :>>>>
> :>>>>
> :>>>> Saying x is a variable doesn't mean you aren't defining it.
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>> Yes, it does.
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>> What you're defining is x eveness, x perfect squareness, etc.
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>>
> :>>> No, that's not what is being defined. The point of a (free) variable in
> :>>> a definition is that you can substitute any constant term (of the right
> :>>> type) for the variable to get a true statement. So in
> :>>>
> :>>> x is even <-> x is a multiple of 2
> :>>>
> :>>> you can substitute any constant term of type natural
> :>>> for x and get a true statement:
> :>>>
> :>>> 0 is even <-> 0 is a multiple of 2
> :>>> 1 is even <-> 1 is a multiple of 2
> :>>> 2 is even <-> 2 is a multiple of 2
> :>>
> :>>
> :>>
> :>> A template for true statements is not a definition.
> :>>
> :>> (BTW. Is -4 even?)
> :>
> :> Yes.
>
> : I thought so. Then Daryl's definition above is incomplete.
>
>
> No, his definition made no mention of natural numbers.
> x is even <-> x is a multiple of 2
>
> There is no mention of natural numbers there. It
> applies to all possible values for x. It clearly
> applies to -4. -4 is a multiple of 2, therefore
> -4 is even.
Apparently, mathematicians define multiple in absolute terms. In
common usage there is no way that -4 is a multiple of 2.
-- "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." - -- Tolstoy
- Next message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "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"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|