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: Marshall on 14 Jan 2010 10:56 On Jan 13, 9:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > That math that "normally educated people" know is something that one > generates from a set of assumptions when one starts studying the nature of > algebras. That does not describe simple arithmetic, for example. It may be the case that the field axioms were retrofitted to real arithmetic many centuries after people learned how to add, subtract, etc. but that doesn't mean that your explanation has any historical or literal truth to it. It's just what happens to be the abstract algebra approach. > It is no more special than the system that Nam Nguyen presented > except that by coincidence it happens to be useful for accounting and other > purposes. Not by coincidence. Marshall
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 14 Jan 2010 11:21 On Jan 14, 9:39 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Zinnic wrote: > > On Jan 13, 11:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: BS (Big Snip) > > He is working thru his boring posting algorithm again. His final step > > will be to sick his 'patsy' onto you. He defecates. She flushes. > > I suspect you're right. I would like to know where this "basketweaving > class" is being held. I suspect that it contains some interesting > "students". J. Clarke speaks of rings above here eloquently. I wonder if you would offer your criticism on the following: The complex number a + b i are considered to be consistent with ring terminology, with a product and sum being consistently defined and being algebraically well behaved, yet within this number form itself a + b i we see one product b i and one sum a + (bi) which are inconsistent with the group and ring definitions since a and b are real, and i is not real. Thus the very construction of the complex number via its definition is not compatible with this abstract algebraic form. Should we distinguish this product bi and sum a+bi from the ring definition's then we would have more operators. Instead these operators mix. I do believe that in the stupendous accumulation that is modern mathematics may lay flaws. The modern student will never be able to challenge the constructions which are shoved down their throat at the rate of their capacity to mimic them. Such a student would be a failure. Thus the system can possibly go awry. Particularly the ability to handle complexity of construction is the meterstick of the quality of a student, rather than the ability to grasp and construct fundamentals. The accumulation is certainly too much for me and I do respect the abilities of others, but also see how they could go wrong, for without the ability to criticize a math as flawed there will be no ability to declare a math valid either. This inability is ingrained within the standard curriculum via its density and accumulation. Production at the leafy nodes of the tree leave one far away from its roots. - Tim
From: John Stafford on 14 Jan 2010 14:36 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > You can't open your silly mouth without making terrible mistakes. The > analogy is a customer comes in and makes clear he will not pay. That > pretty well sums up you morons in the basketweaving class. You won't > play by agreed rules. You are ill bred and deserve nothing but > crowbars and foul language and dirty bath water thrown at you. Aldoraz is a damaged person. She casts all others as she has been cast, but she does not realize it does not work: we do not soak up her damage and she is not released from her own.
From: dorayme on 14 Jan 2010 18:01 In article <SAC3n.6$jE1.5(a)newsfe27.ams2>, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "David Bernier" <david250(a)videotron.ca> wrote in message > news:himqro0cu4(a)news3.newsguy.com... > > I've been thinking about knowledge. How can somebody come to the > > conclusion, once they think they know something, that they > > actually know that thing? What are the steps to follow? > > There are no steps, they have all been taken prior to thinking they know something. If you are meaning by "thinking they know" just "they are not sure" then one makes sure one way or the other by rechecking the evidence for the proposition in question. -- dorayme
From: Nam Nguyen on 14 Jan 2010 22:22
Marshall wrote: > > Terminology, notation, yes; these are arbitrary creations of man. > The things we speak of, the things the terms refer to, > often are not. Math is not. Huh? Are you saying that "Math is not" an "arbitrary creation of man"? If that's what you meant then that's wrong, since Mathematics is a game of the mind. |