Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: SuperJax: "re:pascal's triangle"
- Previous message: Angus Rodgers: "Re: Problem with `big oh' estimates in number theory"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:27:57 -0500
Albert wrote:
>>
> Another stupid question, Bob: How are points defined? I can only
> visualize this as points on an axis.
Points are not defined. They are undefined terms of the theory. A theory
must start with assumed postulates and undefined terms, else an infinite
regress or circular definition is implied. If you want to think of the
points as dots go right ahead.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: SuperJax: "re:pascal's triangle"
- Previous message: Angus Rodgers: "Re: Problem with `big oh' estimates in number theory"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
