Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Do waves move faster in a liquid with a higher density?
Next: ...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
From: dorayme on 8 Jan 2010 16:48 In article <hi7fsu72e0n(a)news1.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <hi4v5i92i43(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > > wrote: > > > >> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > >>> On Jan 6, 9:38 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Methinks PD is a mathematician in which axiomatic certainty can occur. > >>> Axioms do not reside in mathematicians, they reside in systems. > >> Oh, good grief. You don't even have high school math in your > >> background. > >> > > > > You are becoming quite a specialist at cowardly one line responses to > > posts by me and others, is this to hide the great analytical skills you > > boasted about recently? Do you ever have really good reasons for your > > views? > > > So you don't know what axioms are either? > When you learn to quote, you will become more qualified to make these sarcastic remarks. I, dorayme, do know, as well as any one here what an axiom is. It is not a particularly mysterious affair. There are interesting questions about them in various contexts but there is no point in talking about it with unforthcoming cowards and twits like you and Clarke. http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 8 Jan 2010 17:03 In article <hi7gh612e0n(a)news1.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > Funny how you consider anybody who actually knows anything about math to be > > "basketweaving". > > > Which also requires knowledge he doesn't have. Keep saying it in the misguided belief that it makes it true. Don't stop. And never stoop to back up your claim. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 8 Jan 2010 17:12 In article <hi7gp222e0n(a)news1.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <hi6vno031jr(a)news3.newsguy.com>, > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > >> I'm seeing "axiom" > >> tossed around here by people who clearly don't understand how the term is > >> used in mathematics. > > > > You are seeing no such thing, you are a hypocrite. You tried your best > > to manufacture this and when things go sticky for you, you turned to > > personal denigration. It is all there on the record. > > > I think you are confusing posters. > A silly thought - but that is you all over. Is this your training schedule in the basketweaving class for becoming an expert in saying things but never backing them up? -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 8 Jan 2010 17:14 In article <85af2bfd-9157-4f56-b540-f6148c13d3d6(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 10:36 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > Ah, so you are a lunatic. Thanks. > > > It has taken you a long time to realise this? That would be typical of you. Leave Michael alone, he is a pet in this asylum and is the only one I approve to be let out of the basketweaving class for a walk. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 17:16
On Jan 7, 9:43 pm, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Seeing that axiomatic means "self evident', an axiomatic certainty is > one... Is one what Ewolly? > that you do not have to check up because you already know what the > answer will be. Shrug, yawn boring, not ewe as well, Ewolly, that means nothing until you have explained what you mean by certainty. MG |