Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 8 Jan 2010 17:20 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. 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. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 8 Jan 2010 17:25 In article <cWI1n.2906$%P5.1213(a)newsfe21.iad>, DanB <abc(a)some.net> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > > > if math is just a game, then > > what basis is there for claiming anything > > like "correctness" for any particular mathematical > > statement? > > Axioms that are 'accepted' as truth. Why the qualifying quotes? The point is that in a game, truth does not figure prominently. In maths and physics, truth is a bigish player. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 17:29 On Jan 9, 12:33 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Find a PhD logician who thinks that's a good argument. > > Marshall Speaking of a logical argument, you have never answered, how uncertain are you that you can never be certain? Chazzzz says he can only ever be 99.999999% certain but Mortal says he can only be 99.999% certain, so who is the smartest out of those two? can you trump them? They both claim that they cant be certain of anything because of something that doesn't exist by definition, the future, in other words they are using something that does not exist, (the future) as a requirement to be certain now. MG
From: DanB on 8 Jan 2010 17:55 dorayme wrote: > In article<cWI1n.2906$%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? You wouldn't understand. > > The point is that in a game, truth does not figure prominently. In maths > and physics, truth is a bigish player. See what I mean?
From: dorayme on 8 Jan 2010 18:56
In article <oJO1n.7263$Ef7.490(a)newsfe07.iad>, DanB <abc(a)some.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article<cWI1n.2906$%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? > > You wouldn't understand. > > Ah another coward who will not front up to a simple non-abusive question. But instead is rude in reply. I like the way you keep adding to the stats. > > The point is that in a game, truth does not figure prominently. In maths > > and physics, truth is a bigish player. > > See what I mean? No, I do not see what you mean at all and you do not see what I mean. if you had asked a polite question in reply I would have added to your knowledge. As it is, off to the basktweavers for you. It is over there -----> Leave me alone in future. Please. -- dorayme |