Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/24/05
- Next message: PD: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "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"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:28:27 GMT
On 24 Mar 2005 09:59:56 -0800, stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com (Daryl
McCullough) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick says...
>>
>>On 24 Mar 2005 07:49:37 -0800, stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com (Daryl
>>McCullough) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>> 0 is even <-> 0 is a multiple of 2
>>> 1 is even <-> 1 is a multiple of 2
>>> 2 is even <-> 2 is a multiple of 2
>>>
>>> etc.
>>
>>So if you aren't defining x, what makes you think you are defining
>>even, prime, etc?
>
>Because if you know what "multiple" and "integer" and "2" mean, then
>you know what it means for an integer to be a multiple of 2. If you
>know what it means for an integer to be a multiple of 2, then you
>know what it means for an integer to be even, since "x is a multiple
>of 2" and "x is even" mean the same thing, for all x.
So why even bother with x? Just go right to the subject of definition.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: PD: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "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"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
