Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
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
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2010 08:21
John Stafford wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-F346EA.07284412012010(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> If you do not believe this, check the history of almost every thread I >> have been on. But, having experienced your weasel ways here, your >> unforthcomingness when the topic discussion gets pressing, you will not >> be able to see this even if you looked. You will skew all the stats and >> take unrepresentative cases for the main data, you will make very kind >> of simple scientific mistake. > > Likelihood of dorame == aldoraz is now 82%. The number is too high. I doubt she can elide her sexist bigotry based on identity postings. /BAH |