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: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 23:14 On Jan 9, 12:53 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It is a search for anything over 50%. Until this is > understood, it is impossible to understand what so troubled Hume and > modern versions of the problem Its time to get ready for church Patsy, chazzz will save ewe a seat. MG
From: J. Clarke on 9 Jan 2010 00:26 dorayme wrote: > In article <cWI1n.2906$%P5.1213(a)newsfe21.iad>, DanB <abc(a)some.net> > wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: >>> >>> if math is just a game, then >>> what basis is there for claiming anything >>> like "correctness" for any particular mathematical >>> statement? >> >> Axioms that are 'accepted' as truth. > > Why the qualifying quotes? > > The point is that in a game, truth does not figure prominently. In > maths and physics, truth is a bigish player. In math "truth" is whatever you develop logically from your axioms. Some sets of axioms lead to interesting games, some don't. And some sets lead to games that are actually useful.
From: Les Cargill on 9 Jan 2010 00:50 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 9, 3:35 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > >> Text analysis is not trivial. Learn up. > > It is trivially related to this thread. It's also threadily related to the trivial :) -- Les Cargill
From: J. Clarke on 9 Jan 2010 00:32 dorayme wrote: > In article <hi7h9j02hcj(a)news1.newsguy.com>, > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> 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. >> >> Uh huh. Find a PhD mathematician who disagrees with me. > > You find one. Why would I want to find a PhD mathematician who disagrees with me? > And let him post his findings in open discussion. You > are an abject coward and make allegations that you do not in any way > evidence. You just sit there blurting out half-baked ideas and abusing > people for *no good reason*. look at the record, you imbecile. It seems that everyone disagrees with you and they are all "imbeciles" "in the basketweaving class", but you alone in all the world are brilliant and correct. Do you also slay vampires?
From: DanB on 9 Jan 2010 01:05
Marshall wrote: > On Jan 8, 8:19 am, DanB<a...(a)some.net> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >> >>> Or again I ask: if math is just a game, then >>> what basis is there for claiming anything >>> like "correctness" for any particular mathematical >>> statement? >> >> Axioms that are 'accepted' as truth. > > That's supposed to be the basis? Just that noun > phrase by itself? Don't obfuscate, it is the way it is. Try the dictionary. > And anyway, axioms themselves also come from > somewhere. They are not just arbitrary creations > of man. Yes they are, look it up instead of guessing. > Suppose I want to investigate two-element algebras. > How many unary functions are possible? I claim that > there is only a single correct answer to that question: > four. This can be established by simple case analysis. The premise is 'your' claim or of some one else. Analysis is a result of some previous 'truth'. > If axioms are what it's all about, please demonstrate > so. Look it up, 'axiom', nothing to demonstrate from there. > Show me how choosing some axioms that are > 'accepted' as truth can make the right answer come > out three. Ideally you will also show how accepting > those axioms also makes case analysis come up with > the answer three. Accepting an axiom determines results. It is just that simple. Nothing to demonstrate unless you are trying to call me out on 'belief'. Won't work, I have little interest in belief. Are you getting this? |