Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: David's letter to sci.math"
- Previous message: Trinition: "Solving f(t) + C*cos(g(t)) for t"
- In reply to: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:57:12 -0500
Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> More means the common sense, and you can determine it sometimes by appealing
> to how the sets are defined.
There is no common sense of the term. There are mathematical senses
which apply in different applications and contexts. Appeal to a common
notion of "more" in the case of two infinite sets without an explicit
definition or axiomatization which endows the term "more" with semantics
lives us hanging in mid-air.
You obviously believe the term has meaning (to you, anyway). O.K. think
hard and give us a definition. If that is too difficult give us enough
examples to indicate what the term "more" might mean to you. We are not
mind readers, you know. You have to help others to understand you.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: David's letter to sci.math"
- Previous message: Trinition: "Solving f(t) + C*cos(g(t)) for t"
- In reply to: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
