Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:46:14 GMT

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:57:31 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In message <42010d68.67237014@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:09:43 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>>In message <4200ebcc.62632722@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>>><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:08:25 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>>>>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <36afp6F5080m6U1@individual.net>, robert j. kolker
>>>>><nowhere@nowhere.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>>>> And rational numbers are a subset of irrational numbers and not a
>>>>>>> subset of transcendental numbers. Got that, sport?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Irrelevent, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>>Never mind irrelevant, just plain wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>The rationals and the irrationals are disjunct sets, hence the names.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps he means the rationals are a subset of the reals?
>>>>
>>>>To be more specific I mean that rationals and irrationals form a
>>>>complementary set
>>>
>>>That's not "more specific", it's a complete contradiction of your
>>>earlier incorrect statement:
>>
>>Hi Red. My bad. I must remember never to make mistakes less
>>significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out.
>>
>>>>>>>rational numbers are a subset of irrational numbers
>>>
>>>Must remember that one.
>>>"To be more specific" = "I'm about to contradict myself"
>>
>>Hi Red. My bad. I must remember never to make mistakes less
>>significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. My
>>mistakes are only irrational because they can be pointed out whereas
>>your mistakes are transcendental because they cannot be pointed out.
>>
>>
>>>>which can be pointed out on a straight line with the
>>>>use of right angles and that transcendentals cannot.
>>>
>>>Still wrong, anyway. All transcendental numbers *are* irrational, so
>>>there are some irrationals that can't be "pointed out".
>>
>>And there are some mistakes that must be transcendental because
>>apparently they can't be pointed out either. If you wish to maintain
>>that transcendental and irrational mechanics are the same, you are
>>just making a transcendental mistake.
>>
>>>Maybe you mean the *algebraic numbers* can be "pointed out" and the
>>>transcendentals cannot?
>>
>>No I mean transcendentals cannot be pointed out on a straight line
>>using right angles.
>
>You forgot to prefix the following with "To be more specific". HTH.

And you forget to prefix your remarks with the qualification
transcendent truth, Red.

>>If rational numbers can be pointed out on a
>>straight line using right angles and there are numbers on a straight
>>line which can be pointed out using right angles which are not
>>rational, then the meaning of the term not rational or irrational is
>>established by that fact
>
>What fact? The fact that both the rationals and some irrationals can be
>"pointed out using right angles" tells us nothing about what
>"irrational" means.

Sure it does. It tells us what the mechanics of irrationals is. Other
kinds of mechanics define other kinds or classes of numeric concepts
like transcendentals. When you say some irrationals can be and others
can't be pointed out the same way, I have to ask why you confuse the
two with the same name? Because cardinal approximations run off to
infinity in convergent series? Cardinal approximations don't define
anything exactly except cardinal approximations. The mechanics
underlying rationals, irrationals, and transcendentals does that and
are different between irrationals and transcendentals. So I'll be
happy to qualify this observation as rational/irrational so it can be
examined for probity and qualify your observations as transcendental
so they can't.

>> and not the wishful thinking of those who
>>merely see cardinal approximations for irrational and transcendental
>>numbers running off to infinity in covergent series.
>>
>
>--
>Richard Herring

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>No I mean transcendentals cannot be pointed out on a straight line ... The fact that both the rationals and some irrationals can be ... It tells us what the mechanics of irrationals is. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>No I mean transcendentals cannot be pointed out on a straight line ... The fact that both the rationals and some irrationals can be ... It tells us what the mechanics of irrationals is. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>To be more specific I mean that rationals and irrationals form a ... significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>use of right angles and that transcendentals cannot. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>To be more specific I mean that rationals and irrationals form a ... significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>use of right angles and that transcendentals cannot. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>To be more specific I mean that rationals and irrationals form a ... significant than the mistakes made by others that I point out. ... >>use of right angles and that transcendentals cannot. ...
    (sci.physics)