Prev: Is a gram a unit of measure of pressure?
Next: THANKS GOD! I GOT $2000 FROM PAYPAL....
From: Pentcho Valev on 2 Aug 2010 05:02
In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of
thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in
the end:

The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be
converted into work in the heat engine."

There are texts in Carnot's book showing that in 1824 the false axiom
had already become suspicious to him. So there can be no doubt that
Carnot would have dispensed with it if he had seen the slightest
opportunity. There was no opportunity and any analysis of Carnot's
1824 argument would unequivocally show that. Then how can a FALSE
axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a (presumably) true
conclusion? How about the following argument:

Premise: A false axiom CANNOT be indispensable for the deduction of a
true conclusion.

Conclusion: The prototype of the second law of thermodynamics deduced
by Carnot in 1824 is false.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: William Elliot on 2 Aug 2010 06:51
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of
> thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in
> the end:
>
> The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be
> converted into work in the heat engine."
>
> There are texts in Carnot's book showing that in 1824 the false axiom
> had already become suspicious to him. So there can be no doubt that
> Carnot would have dispensed with it if he had seen the slightest
> opportunity. There was no opportunity and any analysis of Carnot's
> 1824 argument would unequivocally show that. Then how can a FALSE
> axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a (presumably) true
> conclusion? How about the following argument:
>
Because Carnot's two assumptions were a good first approximation.
From: Jacko on 2 Aug 2010 19:21
> > The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be
> > converted into work in the heat engine."

"..., without significant technology to phase it."

S shape nano scale 'garage signs' would blow how in a thermal wind.
two on two half axels would drive some electron spring chemical?

The predetermind axiom theory states: Some people have billions
invested in the status quo, and hence are determined to make certain
axioms 'true'.

The counting argument in data compression is another one of the 'holy
axiom' set. And no hear-or-see otherwise will be tolerated.
From: Tim Little on 2 Aug 2010 22:29
On 2010-08-02, Pentcho Valev <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then how can a FALSE axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a
> (presumably) true conclusion?

Indispensable in the sense of not being able to find another
derivation in a particular period of time? Easily. Human beings are
not ideal proof generators. An assumption that appears necessary at
the time can easily turn out to be superfluous later.


- Tim
From: herbzet on 2 Aug 2010 23:34


Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Then how can a FALSE
> axiom be INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of a (presumably) true
> conclusion?

When it is the result of a conspiracy.

Good catch.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Is a gram a unit of measure of pressure?
Next: THANKS GOD! I GOT $2000 FROM PAYPAL....