Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem!"
- Previous message: OsherD: "Re: TOE Via Cantor's Transfinite Arithmetic"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:32:56 GMT
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:25:24 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>> But not modern math.
>
>All mathematics introduced since the Renaissance is modern mathematics.
Quite a claim considering its author is forced to rely on Euclidean
ruler and compass construction to define a circle he can't define in
modern math terms correctly as the set of all points equidistant from
any point.
>It represents those mathematical developments which go beyond the
>classical greek or hellensitic mathematics.
Which your modern math definition for a circle certainly doesn't.
>If you mean mathematics done in a formal style that goes back to the
>time of Cantor (circa 1870) and subsequent developments. You can even
>take it back to Galois who invented group theory in circa 1830 to prove
>the unsolvability of quintic polynomials by root extraction.
I mean mathematics as the derivation of universal knowledge applied
specifically to spatial dimensionality and the study of numeric
concepts.
>You really have no knowlege of the history of mathematics, do you? You
>are an intellectual vandal who draws graffite over ideas you cannot or
>will not comprehend.
My knowledge of mathematics tends to focus on universal concepts,
something your modern math definition of the circle doesn't even if
you appeal to history for justification.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem!"
- Previous message: OsherD: "Re: TOE Via Cantor's Transfinite Arithmetic"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
