Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: "david petry" <david_lawrence_petry@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Jan 2006 15:57:58 -0800
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > david petry wrote:
> >> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> > But existential claims are not falsifiable, so we should banish the
> >> > existential quantifier.
> >>
> >> Not quite. When we assert that something exists, we must also give some
> >> finite set in which it can be found. Thus ...
> >>
> >> > Suppose I prove: There exists n, P(n).
> >>
> >> We would have to prove: There exists n <= N, P(n), where N is
> >> explicitly given. That is a falsifiable statement.
> >>
> >
> > In Euclidean geometry, given two distinct points A, B, there exists an
> > equilateral triangle having AB as a side.
> >
> > What are "n" and "N" in this case? Is this a falsifiable statement? Is
> > there a constructive proof of the assertion?
>
> Worse, now he's clarified computational experiment thus:
>
> A statement of the form "Turing machine T, given input M, will (or
> will not) halt within N steps", describes a computational
> experiment.
>
> Euclidean geometry is pretty far from producing predictions of that
> sort.
That's completely false. When dealing with a continuum, the
predictions will be about approximations to the continuum.
Thus, for example, the theorem that the angle bisectors of a triangle
meet at a common point would say something like, "within the precision
of our experiment, the angle bisectors of a triange will meet at a
common point". That does correspond to an experiment as I have defined
it.
> "Demons were like genies or philosophy professors---if you didn't word
> things /exactly/ right, they delighted in giving you absolutely
> accurate and completely misleading answers."
> -- Terry Pratchett, /Wyrd Sisters/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jean-Claude Arbaut
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- References:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by Date: Notation for Inverse Propotionality?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|