Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:06:22 -0500

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:AaqUd.3955$Vf6.162880@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>But the rule/equation based on is NOT. When we match, we take one
>
> element
>
>>>and "match" it with another without any mapping function.
>>
>>But that's what mapping is. "We take one lement and match it with
>>another..." _is_ a mapping function, or rather a description of one
>>(rather vague, but I think we know what you intend.:-))
>
>
> Well, what I meant was that when we match we don't normally do any
> mathematical translation on it, but instead select one from set A and one of
> set B and repeat this until we've dealt with all of the elements in at least
> one of the sets. Thus saying that you can "map" by multiplying and dividing
> by two does not seem to follow DIRECTLY from matching.

You're right, the fact that aruithmetic operations are actually a
mapping functions was a discovery, and a very useful one.

[...]
>
> Please don't take this as an angry rant, but you have the strangest tendency
> to make all sorts of great arguments against things that not only did I not
> say, but that I agree with [grin]. I never said that set operations weren't
> common or used in everyday life, but had some issues with this particular
> one as applied to infinite sets (and how it is justified). So it seems that
> we are vigourously agreeing here ...

Except that I see no reason not to apply mapping to infinite sets, nor
to using mapping functions to show that the mapping is both 1 to 1 and
complete. I still don't see why you object to that. Apart from the fact
that such procedures lead to very odd conclusions. But so what? If
reason didn't lead to odd conclusions, we wouldn't need it.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... mapping functions was a discovery, ... Except that I see no reason not to apply mapping to infinite sets, ... that such procedures lead to very odd conclusions. ... reason didn't lead to odd conclusions, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... mapping functions was a discovery, ... Except that I see no reason not to apply mapping to infinite sets, ... that such procedures lead to very odd conclusions. ... reason didn't lead to odd conclusions, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... > pair of infinite sets can be realitvely measured, but one can certainly do a ... > better job for sets of numbers than to use mapping functions and reorderings of ... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain ... a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Except that I see no reason not to apply mapping to infinite sets, ... > reason didn't lead to odd conclusions, ... My argument is that the mapping functions are based on a property of finite ... proper subset's definition seems to imply that a proper subset must have ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Except that I see no reason not to apply mapping to infinite sets, ... > reason didn't lead to odd conclusions, ... My argument is that the mapping functions are based on a property of finite ... proper subset's definition seems to imply that a proper subset must have ...
    (sci.physics)