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: Errol on 13 Jan 2010 04:07 On Jan 13, 10:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <Vld3n.32973$Gf3.11...(a)newsfe22.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > Yes. Put a pig on a small enough asteroid that has low gravity and it could > > fly! (And you wouldn't need a Martian help for that). Trivial fact perhaps > > but nothing intriguing. > > I thought you might not be understanding: a pig on a flying object is > not a pig flying in the normal meaning of the phrases. > Maybe you could provide an example of how a pig might fly in the normal meaning of the phrases. Maybe the pig came to earth from planet zork in the 43rd dimension from our causal reference and has super powers on earth. Maybe an earth pig with swine flu was infected by a bird with bird flu while eating radioactive swill and grew wings. maybe a pig drank red bull Please enlighten me.
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jan 2010 09:15 dorayme wrote: > In article <Vld3n.32973$Gf3.11418(a)newsfe22.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> dorayme wrote: >>> In article <sCV2n.3785$ZB2.3547(a)newsfe13.iad>, >>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> dorayme wrote: >>> >>>>> 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. >> >>>> Keep the "meanings"; just change the frameworks, axioms, models, >>>> or a combination of. >>>> >>> >>> You mean like "A pig can fly" can be changed into a truth by a >>> Martian with different "frameworks, axioms, models", but who means >>> exactly what we mean by "pig", and "fly" and "is". What an >>> intriguing suggestion! >> >> Yes. Put a pig on a small enough asteroid that has low gravity and >> it could fly! (And you wouldn't need a Martian help for that). >> Trivial fact perhaps but nothing intriguing. >> > > I thought you might not be understanding: a pig on a flying object is > not a pig flying in the normal meaning of the phrases. > >> Another example, keep the meaning of "It's raining" the same, but >> change the model at will to change the truth of it. >> >> It's all just a game of the mind. >> >>>> The point is mathematics is still just a game, even though it >>>> might be a useful one by no coincidence. >>> >>> The point is that it is not always just a game then. >> >> Let me repeat: Mathematics is a game of the mind. > > You can repeat it as much as you like. It does not make it true and it > still needs an argument. Your above misunderstanding should surely > make you pause before being quite so confident as to simply repeat it > again without further supporting explanation and argument. It's simply the way that it is. Algebra over the real numbers is one of many different rings. Rings in general are only one subset of groups. There are axioms that define the properties of groups in general, then there are specific additional axioms that define particular kinds of groups, then there are additional axioms that define rings within groups. Then there are additional axioms that define particular kinds of rings. Then there are additional axioms which when applied to a specific kind of ring give us our everyday algebra. By applying different axioms you can define other algebras that work fine as mathematical systems but are not particularly useful for anything.
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2010 10:13 J. Clarke wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> Nam Nguyen 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. >> Which can be written down on paper. >> >>> 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. >>> >> Have you done any cost analysis lately? Or materials design? Or >> built a bridge? Or figured out the load of the roof on your house? > > That sort of thing uses one branch of mathematics that coincidentally has > real-world utility. This is a small subset of the totality of mathematics. > Yes, I know. However, there exist posters in this thread who don't even know about real-world utility. I figured out after I posted the above reply that the poster knew the difference. /BAH
From: DanB on 13 Jan 2010 11:23 Errol wrote: > On Jan 13, 10:12 am, dorayme<doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> In article<Vld3n.32973$Gf3.11...(a)newsfe22.iad>, >> Nam Nguyen<namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>> Yes. Put a pig on a small enough asteroid that has low gravity and it could >>> fly! (And you wouldn't need a Martian help for that). Trivial fact perhaps >>> but nothing intriguing. >> >> I thought you might not be understanding: a pig on a flying object is >> not a pig flying in the normal meaning of the phrases. >> > > Maybe you could provide an example of how a pig might fly in the > normal meaning of the phrases. > > Maybe the pig came to earth from planet zork in the 43rd dimension > from our causal reference and has super powers on earth. > Maybe an earth pig with swine flu was infected by a bird with bird flu > while eating radioactive swill and grew wings. > maybe a pig drank red bull > > Please enlighten me. I think you and the pig are over his head...
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 13 Jan 2010 19:40
> We are talking about reasoning, not truth. You cannot talk about reasoning without talking about or mentioning truth. But of course, in your case and in the case of all the basketweavers (your peer review group), no one knows the hell of what they are talking about. Did something bad happen to all of your brains or have you all been that way a long time? |