Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 15 Jan 2010 00:41 On Jan 15, 2:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > dorayme is quite right, not all maths is a game. > > Ok. Let's get technical. Which part of math is a game and which > part is part of the Reality and therefore isn't a game of the mind? > And why? OK, now this is shaping up to be a good and interesting question. I understood you were sent to me here to be beaten up into a pulp. But you are disappointing me by being polite and almost reasonable. I am sorry to say I am going to have to pass you back to dorayme. It knows more than I do about this question. Stand by and it might unfilter you and when it has time, begin to discuss this interesting issue. Try to be polite and do not make personal remarks however tempted you are. Just remain calm and keep out *heavy* sarcasm (light pointed sarcasm is acceptable and welcome). Be patient.
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Jan 2010 01:07 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 15, 2:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: >>> dorayme is quite right, not all maths is a game. >> Ok. Let's get technical. Which part of math is a game and which >> part is part of the Reality and therefore isn't a game of the mind? >> And why? > > I am sorry to say I am going to have to pass you back to dorayme. > It knows more than I do about this question. Interesting isn't it? The question was addressed _to you_ and was directly about what _you_ uttered: "dorayme is quite right, not all maths is a game"! Did _you_ really know what you were talking about when you defended dorayme?
From: Marshall on 15 Jan 2010 01:51 On Jan 14, 7:22 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > 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. What? You and I disagree on something? It cannot be. Marshall
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 15 Jan 2010 02:10 On Jan 15, 5:07 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > >>> dorayme is quite right, not all maths is a game. > >> Ok. Let's get technical. Which part of math is a game and which > >> part is part of the Reality and therefore isn't a game of the mind? > >> And why? > > > I am sorry to say I am going to have to pass you back to dorayme. > > It knows more than I do about this question. > > Interesting isn't it? The question was addressed _to you_ and was directly > about what _you_ uttered: "dorayme is quite right, not all maths is a game"! > > Did _you_ really know what you were talking about when you defended dorayme? Hang on there old bean, are you here to have a personal fight, to try to humiliate and show up people but are not interested in the actual issue? That is what is really interesting, isn't it? I think dorayme will be quite alarmed at having you back. But you know, you are starting to irritate me. I want it to have you back. Be polite to dorayme and you will get on fine.
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Jan 2010 02:10
Marshall wrote: > On Jan 14, 7:22 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> 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. > > What? You and I disagree on something? It cannot be. Oh, it can be - easily! That aside I was accsuing you of being incorrect: >> If that's what you meant then that's wrong, since Mathematics is a game >> of the mind. Can you defend your position? |