Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Pi and the distribution of prime numbers"
- Previous message: achava_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Geometric series"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Michael Olea: "Why Topology? (was irrationality 0.201201020100201000201...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:35:58 -0600
robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> 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.
I don't think of them as dots. I think of them as relative
locations in a space. What kind of topological space can
possibly be defined with points having undefined relative locations?
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Pi and the distribution of prime numbers"
- Previous message: achava_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Geometric series"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Michael Olea: "Why Topology? (was irrationality 0.201201020100201000201...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
