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: Zinnic on 12 Jan 2010 06:58 On Jan 12, 3:27 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 12, 6:23 pm, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Forget parrallel lines. The postulate is about two lines that are NOT > > parrallel. > > They can either be converging or diverging. > > So which is it? > > MG Me?
From: Zinnic on 12 Jan 2010 07:11 On Jan 11, 5:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > ------> > > Now I am done with you, I pass you over to the good Patricia who can > kick you in the balls when she has time to look at Google Groupers, you > have forfeited the right to appear in my newsreader. > > Bye! And now Dora has completed his posting algorithm. Like an automaton, so, so predictable! Snicker Zinnic
From: Michael Gordge on 12 Jan 2010 07:18 On Jan 12, 8:58 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Jan 12, 3:27 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > On Jan 12, 6:23 pm, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Forget parrallel lines. The postulate is about two lines that are NOT > > > parrallel. > > > They can either be converging or diverging. > > > So which is it? > > > MG > > Me? So who's on second? MG
From: J. Clarke on 12 Jan 2010 07:21 dorayme wrote: > In article <6pV2n.3782$ZB2.1447(a)newsfe13.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> dorayme wrote: >>> In article <2sU2n.18279$Sh7.5672(a)newsfe25.iad>, >>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> It has been proposed on this thread that math is just a game >>>>> with no significance or utility, except by coincidence (this is >>>>> bullshit.) >>>> Mathematics is a game of the mind. Whether or not that has any >>>> utility or significance, or that is by coincidence, or that is >>>> "bullshit" doesn't matter, to the fact that it's just a game. >>> >>> It can be treated as a game with strict rules. >> >> If mathematical truths are absolute, existing independently outside >> human mind then mathematics wouldn't be a game. But that's not the >> case. >> Ask yourself which particular truth that can't be proven false in a >> different context, and you would see that it's just a game of >> choosing reasoning frameworks, manipulating symbols, interpreting >> models, etc... > > Well, I don't know how you would work it so that one could see that > there are no primes between 1 and 21 and such things without changing > the *meanings* of the words used. The meanings _are_ made up. They are among the axioms of that particular game, "algebra over the set of integers". Given a set Z with thus and so properties, and the operations "+" and "*" with thus and so properties, what conclusions can we draw? And one of them is the one that you draw. But if we define Z differently or define + or * differently we end up with a different outcome. In your first abstract algebra course you'll spend the better part of a semester playing with this notion. It so happens that algebra over the integers is useful to us, but one can construct many other algebras that are less so. >>> That does not mean it is >>> just a game nor that it is a coincidence that mathematics is useful >>> to us. >> >> It's a misconception that games in general have to be useless to >> human beings. > > Who is falling for that misconception. Neither of us! But the question > that is relevant is what sort of use. Mere use because it reduces > stress levels is not much relevant!
From: Zinnic on 12 Jan 2010 07:36
On Jan 12, 6:11 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Jan 11, 5:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article > > ------> > > > Now I am done with you, I pass you over to the good Patricia who can > > kick you in the balls when she has time to look at Google Groupers, you > > have forfeited the right to appear in my newsreader. > > > Bye! > > And now Dora has completed his posting algorithm. Like an automaton, > so, so predictable! > Snicker > Zinnic See my post "Text analysis reveals such identity of pattern in this and your other Dora/Dora posts that I suspect you are using the same algorithm for their production. A prime example is the usual killfile cop-out of the brat who, when unable to rationally justify himself (DORAyme), gives license to his true nature (alDORAz) to mouth (oops! wrong end of the worm) obscene insults." Zinnic |