Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 5 Sep 2006 18:52 On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:54:22 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <vckrf21eftu9dec4bndsritu590geljcak(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > >> I have no idea what >> Virgil was trying to say but that's nothing unusual. > >As Zick usually does not even have any idea what Zick is trying to say, >one is hardly surprised at his inability to understand what others say. Oh don't go getting all bent out of shape, Virgil. (See there's an imperative for you so it must be a definition.) In fact upon further reflection I'm convinced my original construction was correct. Isn't there anyone else you can talk to? ~v~~
From: fernando revilla on 5 Sep 2006 15:12 Virgil wrote: > Better than truth because Zick says so" We should consider a decent surrender, we are saints ! Fernando.
From: Virgil on 5 Sep 2006 20:22 In article <agvrf21km3cu96aq3sn94hb65mb1ttc8lj(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:51:32 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <14krf21380dfv1tck0dqgvskm37rm8uthq(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> Jesus you really consider this story bears any epistemological > >> significance whatsoever? This is nothing but a completely trivial > >> instance of zen truth. First we had Virgil's truth as a function of > >> grammar and now we have truth as a function of grasshoppers. > > > >Better than truth because Zick says so" > > Hardly better than truth, Virgil, just better than fantasy land. Zick would know better that I about what goes on in the latter.
From: Dik T. Winter on 5 Sep 2006 21:06 In article <tMfLg.4871$9c3.4603(a)reader1.news.jippii.net> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> writes: > Dik T. Winter wrote: > > Mathematicians do not claim axioms to be either true or false. > > So you would balk at asserting that it's true that whatever mathematical > property P is we have that > > if P(0) and for every natural n, P(n) implies P(n+1), then for every > natural n, P(n) > > is true, for example? Only if you accept the axiom of induction. If you do not accept that axiom it is probably false. There is no *a priori* reason to either accept or reject it. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 5 Sep 2006 22:01
Dik T. Winter wrote: > In article <tMfLg.4871$9c3.4603(a)reader1.news.jippii.net> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> writes: > > So you would balk at asserting that it's true that whatever mathematical > > property P is we have that > > > > if P(0) and for every natural n, P(n) implies P(n+1), then for every > > natural n, P(n) > > > > is true, for example? > > Only if you accept the axiom of induction. If you do not accept that axiom > it is probably false. How does your accepting or not accepting it affect its truth or falsity in any way? In any case, surely if you accept the principle of induction you will, trivially, accept its truth. > There is no *a priori* reason to either accept or > reject it. Sure there is. It follows immediately from our mathematical picture of the naturals. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |