Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 7 Jan 2010 19:40 In article <hi5uar0lbu(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> > >> Would you be kind enough to define the words "axiom" and "axiomatic" > >> as you are using them? > > > > Well, I have not been party to any deep discussion about this and have > > not much used them here. But I am happy to speak to your question > > anyway. An axiom is a proposition in a system of propositions that is > > accepted as true without needing to be proved from within the system. > > Usually the word is used where the propositions are not merely > > conditionally held to be true but are simply self evident (or at least > > more obviously true than any other thing that we can think of that it > > could itself be derived from). > > I see. When you say that something is "axiomatic" do you mean that you are > stating an axiom or do you mean that you are deducing something from axioms? I don't go around ever saying this - but if I did I would probably mean it was self-evident or something to be assumed for now, it would depend on the context. Care to supply one? -- dorayme
From: Marshall on 7 Jan 2010 20:19 On Jan 7, 2:24 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > Good sample! I'm using your and Aldoraz's posts to demonstrate text > analysis to find cohorts and same authors. Would you be interested in > the outcome? Seriously? Because that's an interest of mine. What algorithms are you using? Do you have papers you're fond of? I found algorithmically establishing authorship of usenet posts to be fairly difficult, because I was never able to get any algorithms to work all that well unless I had a fairly sizeable body of words; 50,000+ was generally needed to be reliable. Although I expect it is possible to do better. Marshall
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jan 2010 20:13 dorayme wrote: > In article <hi5uar0lbu(a)news4.newsguy.com>, > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>>> >>>> Would you be kind enough to define the words "axiom" and >>>> "axiomatic" as you are using them? >>> >>> Well, I have not been party to any deep discussion about this and >>> have not much used them here. But I am happy to speak to your >>> question anyway. An axiom is a proposition in a system of >>> propositions that is accepted as true without needing to be proved >>> from within the system. Usually the word is used where the >>> propositions are not merely conditionally held to be true but are >>> simply self evident (or at least more obviously true than any other >>> thing that we can think of that it could itself be derived from). >> >> I see. When you say that something is "axiomatic" do you mean that >> you are stating an axiom or do you mean that you are deducing >> something from axioms? > > I don't go around ever saying this - but if I did I would probably > mean it was self-evident or something to be assumed for now, it would > depend on the context. Care to supply one? Just wanted to know how you defined the terms. Seems that you've got it mostly right, however you need to remember that axioms are _always_ made up rules, in both math and physics. In math, which is really a logic game, the axioms don't necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, while in physics they are established by long observation and are subject to change if a confirmed observation to the contrary is encountered.
From: dorayme on 7 Jan 2010 20:41 In article <hi61qt019be(a)news1.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <hi5uar0lbu(a)news4.newsguy.com>, > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > >>>> > >>>> Would you be kind enough to define the words "axiom" and > >>>> "axiomatic" as you are using them? > >>> > >>> Well, I have not been party to any deep discussion about this and > >>> have not much used them here. But I am happy to speak to your > >>> question anyway. An axiom is a proposition in a system of > >>> propositions that is accepted as true without needing to be proved > >>> from within the system. Usually the word is used where the > >>> propositions are not merely conditionally held to be true but are > >>> simply self evident (or at least more obviously true than any other > >>> thing that we can think of that it could itself be derived from). > >> > >> I see. When you say that something is "axiomatic" do you mean that > >> you are stating an axiom or do you mean that you are deducing > >> something from axioms? > > > > I don't go around ever saying this - but if I did I would probably > > mean it was self-evident or something to be assumed for now, it would > > depend on the context. Care to supply one? > > Just wanted to know how you defined the terms. Seems that you've got it > mostly right, however you need to remember that axioms are _always_ made up > rules, in both math and physics. I cannot *remember* what is not true! And it is not true that axioms in maths or logic or physics are always *made up of rules*. > In math, which is really a logic game, the > axioms don't necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, It is an open question whether it is not *just* a logic game. There are semantics. And it is not clear what "having a basis in the physical universe" really means. > while in > physics they are established by long observation and are subject to change > if a confirmed observation to the contrary is encountered. Now you contradict yourself, one hardly looks to observations to verify the truth of something made up of rules. -- dorayme
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 7 Jan 2010 20:47
On Jan 8, 12:19 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 2:24 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > > > > Good sample! I'm using your and Aldoraz's posts to demonstrate text > > analysis to find cohorts and same authors. Would you be interested in > > the outcome? > > Seriously? Because that's an interest of mine. What > algorithms are you using? Do you have papers you're > fond of? > > I found algorithmically establishing authorship of usenet > posts to be fairly difficult, because I was never able > to get any algorithms to work all that well unless I had > a fairly sizeable body of words; 50,000+ was generally > needed to be reliable. Although I expect it is possible > to do better. > > Marshall Ah well, dorayme... woo hoo dorayme... look we are finally of some use to these folks! Which reminds me of this story: A woman was given her late husband's ashes in the form of a sand-timer like utensil. Every time she used it to time her boiled eggs, she would chuckle on how at last her husband was useful around the house! |