Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
Next: question on Artwork and what is legal in altering a signed painting #24 South Dakota cat laws
From: Ruud Harmsen on 28 Dec 2009 04:02 Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:14:07 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >None of the newsgroup-snobs has yet produced a single reason to switch >away. Google strings together URL on separate lines into a single line even without spaces between the URLs. -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
From: garabik-news-2005-05 on 28 Dec 2009 04:04 In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > Is "continent" a technical term in geography? > Dunno. It is, however, widely used. > Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? > Yes. Not formally defined (except by enumeration), though. > (Apparently it is now.) ....except of extrasolar planets, which by this definition are not planets... To which extent does a terminology make a part of the language of science? And what about informal, but widely used terminology? It is an open question for which I have no answer. However, let's not leave out mathematics: many interesting fields, rings and groups are defined by enumeration of their members, operations and rules (see Boolean algebra for a simple one). Heck, even natural numbers are defined by their "enumeration" in a sense (Peano axioms). -- ----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
From: Ace0f_5pades on 28 Dec 2009 04:12 On Dec 28, 9:54 pm, Ace0f_5pades <m4de...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > The artistic bent has a tendency toward conceptualising a lot easily > IMO-- also, children who don't read much have a higher tendency toward > conceptualizing: Over time, as language skills improve, and as the > communication balances shift to a language prinicple, the capacity to > visualize decreases. > > I would bet that those adults who have vivid dreams still pocess a > strong conceptual capacity. when did you last experience a dream that > felt totally real? > > I have a strong artistic bent, but I consider my thought processes as > language dominated. I can paint photorealism, which is somewhat a > contradiction. But actually, photorealism has a large linear though- > process and also takes spatial -tonal and chromatic awarenesses which > are conceptual. thats not to say that conceptualizing isn't possible via thought processing, it just takes a whole bunch of them forming cohernet ideas, arrange together to form a concept. afterall, the concept of consciousness was rationalise throught the process of thought processing by Descarte
From: Brian M. Scott on 28 Dec 2009 04:59 On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:53:55 -0800 (PST), "benlizro(a)ihug.co.nz" <benlizro(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote in <news:c67e57e6-2dc1-4a32-8d0e-64eb977c99ba(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > On Dec 28, 10:18�am, Ruud Harmsen <r...(a)rudhar.eu> wrote: >> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" >> <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >>>> I don't believe the distinction between voiced and >>>> unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the >>>> standard dialect. >>>True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] >>>distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >>>predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). >> http://rudhar.com/lingtics/dhth_eng.htm > Thanks! I once carried on a long argument with one of > those "some linguists" on this topic. Looking at this > mishmash of phonological, grammatical and etymological > conditions, I am more than ever at a loss to understand > how any linguist can maintain with a straight face that > dh/th are in "complementary distribution". The one that I had in mind was Robert Whiting, on the old IE list. He argued at considerable length but failed altogether to convince Larry Trask and Leo Connolly (not to mention me). Brian
From: Brian M. Scott on 28 Dec 2009 05:01
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in <news:hh9nbf$ejq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> On Dec 27, 3:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: [...] >>> True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] >>> distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >>> predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). [...] >> Whatever you recently did to "fix" your encoding has >> resulted in blank spaces where you typed funny letters. > No, it's posted with Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" I don't think the problem was caused > by his last mod farther down the list of formats. It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd not have the problem. Brian |