Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 03/22/05 

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:46:23 -0500

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3a5ti8F686885U1@individual.net...
>
>
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > Please define "rigourous definition" and show me why that would matter
> > first.
>
> A rigourous definition first would identify terms you are leaving
> undefined (there must be such) terms. The remaineder of the definition
> to conform to common mathematical usage.

Ah, so what you mean is "mathematical definition", not rigourous definition.
I feel no need to provide a definition that conforms to the definitions that
I disagree with, sorry.

 Now tell us what you mean by
> "relative number" as opposed to just plain number or un-relative number.
> What meanind does "relative" have here?

You cannot take "relative number" out of the phrase "relative number of
elements". What the phrase means as a whole is the number of elements in
the sets relative to each other's number of elements, even if the exact
number of elements is not known/knowable (ie that whatever the number of
elements in the one set is, the other set has a constant number relative to
that).

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > A rigourous definition first would identify terms you are leaving ... > to conform to common mathematical usage. ... Ah, so what you mean is "mathematical definition", not rigourous definition. ... You cannot take "relative number" out of the phrase "relative number of ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > A rigourous definition first would identify terms you are leaving ... > to conform to common mathematical usage. ... Ah, so what you mean is "mathematical definition", not rigourous definition. ... You cannot take "relative number" out of the phrase "relative number of ...
    (sci.cognitive)