Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:00:15 -0500

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:38bd7vF5gtghdU3@individual.net...
>
>
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > Yep, that's one of them. But why should we accept it, especially since
it
> > is an accidental derivation on finite sets, and not the actual
definition of
> > equi-numerous? In short, we discovered the mapping rule while using a
> > definition of "equi-numerous" and looking at finite sets; if this
definition
> > causes contradictions in the original idea, then it must be rejected.
>
> Because that is how little kids decide whether they have the same number
> of pennies as marbles. One to one matching is intuitive, basic and even
> primitive. Toddlers can do it.

But the rule/equation based on is NOT. When we match, we take one element
and "match" it with another without any mapping function. The "mapping
function" approach is one that is derived from an accidental quality of
finite sets.

For example, how many people "match" in real life by dividing numbers by 2?
Or multiplying them by 2?

Relevant Pages
Quantcast