Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
From: Daryl McCullough (stevendaryl3016_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Arturo Magidin: "Re: JSH: Heart of dispute, number properties"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert Wagner: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0800
Albert Wagner says...
>
>Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>> Wrong. The original definition makes no statement whatsoever
>> about the finiteness or not of the subset.
>
>Of course it doesn't explicitly. But the implication is obvious.
>Is a pickpocket who works in gloves innocent of theft?
A circular definition is one in which the word to be defined
appears in the definition. The definition for "infinite" is
not circular, since the word "infinite" does not appear in it:
There exists a bijection between S and a proper subset of S
Are you trying to say that the meaning of "bijection" implicitly
involves the word "infinite"? Are you trying to say that the phrase
"proper subset" implicitly involves the word "infinite"? How is
the definition implicitly circular?
-- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
- Next message: Arturo Magidin: "Re: JSH: Heart of dispute, number properties"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert Wagner: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|