Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: "Political Correctness" drives scientific errors"
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: Relatives Are Defined by Absolutes"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:17:15 GMT
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:21:31 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>> How about giving us a rigorous definition for spatial dimensionality,
>> Bob?
>
>Thee are several definitions of dimension of spaces. Which do you want?
The correct one, Bob, the one that allows you to construct circles
using Euclidean ruler and compass methods to define spatial
dimensionality while denouncing Euclidean spatial concepts, Bob.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: "Political Correctness" drives scientific errors"
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: Relatives Are Defined by Absolutes"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
