Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:07:09 -0500

Lester Zick said:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:25:06 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >Lester Zick said:
> >> On 10 Feb 2005 18:29:10 GMT, stephen@nomail.com in comp.ai.philosophy
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In sci.math Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >: stephen@nomail.com wrote:
> >> >:> In sci.math Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >:> : stephen@nomail.com wrote:
> >> >:> : <snip>
> >> >:> :> Not according to the definition of cardinality. Cardinality is well
> >> >:> :> defined, and it logically follows that |A + B| can equal |A| even
> >> >:> :> when |B|!=0. You are not appealing to logic, but to intuition.
> >> >:> :> What does your intuition think infinity+1 equals?
> >> >:>
> >> >:> : Appealing to illogic is not more correct than an appeal to intuition.
> >> >:>
> >> >:> : <snip>
> >> >:>
> >> >:> What appeal to illogic? Cardinality is well defined. It
> >> >:> logically follows from that definition that |A+B| can equal |A|
> >> >:> even when |B|!=0. Point to an error in the logic.
> >> >
> >> >: Show me the logic from which the definition follows.
> >> >
> >> >Two sets have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection
> >> >between them. That is the definition. Like most definitions,
> >> >it is just assigning a name to a longer concept. Can you
> >> >give me an example of a definition that logically follows
> >> >from something? I cannot think of any examples in math or logic.
> >>
> >> The universal truth of contradiction is defined by the self
> >> contradictory nature of alternatives to contradiction.
> >>
> >> Regards - Lester
> >>
> >Does consistency, as an alternative to contradiction, contradict itself?
> >How is consistency self-contradictory?
>
> Well, consistency is defined by the absence of contradiction, Tony.
> It's the result of contradiction and not an alternative.
Cosnsistency is the absence of contradiction.
> It can't
> contradict itself because the absence of something can't contradict
> anything any more than the addition of zero can change magnitude.
The absence of something contradicts the presence of it.

>
> Regards - Lester
> 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick said: ... >>Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... >>Try the absence of logical consistency. ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick said: ... >>Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... >>Try the absence of logical consistency. ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick said: ... >>Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... >>Try the absence of logical consistency. ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >Lester Zick wrote: ... >> Well, consistency is defined by the absence of contradiction, Tony. ... Tony appears totally unrelated to anything you say here. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >Lester Zick wrote: ... >> Well, consistency is defined by the absence of contradiction, Tony. ... Tony appears totally unrelated to anything you say here. ...
    (sci.cognitive)