Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Art Deco: "Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs"
- Previous message: Mark Martin: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Maybe in reply to: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:11:47 GMT
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:56:05 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta
<bilotta78@hotpop.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:42:47 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta
>> <bilotta78@hotpop.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> >I would like to know which areas of mathematics you think are not built
>> >> >on set theory.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, the definition of circles for one.
>> >
>> >And what would that be?
>>
>> You don't get out much, do you?
>
>No, not much. Now, would you please answer the question and
>provide a definition of 'circle' that doesn't use 'set',
>neither directly nor indirectly and which does not suffer from
>the shortcomings you like to point out in others' definitions?
The only universal definition for circle I can think of offhand is a
curve with the ratio of pi/2 between two points. A curve is defined
universally as a line which doesn't occur between two points.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Art Deco: "Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs"
- Previous message: Mark Martin: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Maybe in reply to: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
