Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: TOE Via Cantor's Transfinite Arithmetic"
- Previous message: Helmut Wabnig: "Re: Strategy with "Uncle Al""
- 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 17:21:40 GMT
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:26:04 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>> There is a distinction between mathematics, Bob, and modern math.
>
>So you claim. Now show the difference. Be very explicit.
The difference between your first modern math definition for a circle
which actually defines a sphere and your second Euclidean definition
for a circle which allows you to pretend that circles are well defined
as the set of all points equidistant from any point without definition
for spatial dimensionality that allows you to pretend dimensionality
is just so much vulcanized rubber.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: TOE Via Cantor's Transfinite Arithmetic"
- Previous message: Helmut Wabnig: "Re: Strategy with "Uncle Al""
- 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
|
