Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Richard Herring (junk_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:29:28 +0000

In message <420795c5.30627165@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:50:53 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In message <42051f5c.17339789@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:54:14 +1300, Jason
>>><jasonstevensNOSPAM@free.net.nz> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> for rational and irrational concepts. No point to
>>>>>> defining transcendental as irrational.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not *defined* as irrational, it follows from the definition of
>>>>> "transcendental" that such numbers also meet the requirements of
>>>>> "irrational".
>>>>
>>>>My 2 cents:
>>>
>>>Always welcome.
>>>
>>>>There are many more numbers than names, so there will always be nameless
>>>>numbers no matter how clever the notation is. With algebraic notation,
>>>>the "transcendentals" transcend our ability to finitely describe them
>>>>with expressions of roots. All we can do is give them names, like 'pi'
>>>>and 'e'.
>>>
>>>But we can describe them algebraically even if we can't finitely
>>>describe their roots. So use of the term algebraic is ambiguous.
>>
>>It isn't, because the definition of "algebraic number" is such that
>>transcendentals are excluded.
>
>Are red trucks also excluded?

Are red trucks numbers? Do you habitually compare incommensurable
categories?

>>Didn't you read the reference I posted? Here it is again:
>
>Why would I read your references when you won't even address the
>issues I raise concerning the lack of universality in mathematical
>comprehension?

Well, for one, you might consider the possibility that the references
would explain matters better than I can.

>You seem to consider specialization an excuse for
>ignorance

You seem to be prone to making inferences which aren't supported by the
evidence. How is my knowledge of the accepted definition of certain
terms a matter of ignorance?

>and simply wish to convert me to your parochial views

No, I wish you to convert you to the same terminology as everyone else
uses.

>of a
>topic which considers itself the epitome of universal thought.

Goodness, I wasn't aware of that. A self-aware topic. Whatever next? 

-- 
Richard Herring

Relevant Pages
Quantcast