Method and Logic
in [Cryptography]
|
From: WTShaw on 31 Jan 2010 06:25 On Jan 30, 11:50 am, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > Amazing. Two posts and noone has the least interest in telling us what > in the world this document actually is. > I detest that kind of post. Be polite enough to tell the reader what you > suggesting he look at. > > A System Of Logic, Ratiocinative And Inductive by John Stuart Mill > > On 2010-01-30, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > > > WTShaw wrote: > >> If you are convinced that argument exclusive of data is worth much, > >> start with downloading and studying this classic: > > >>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/27942 > > > It seems that the Gutenberg project has indeed made quite a lot of > > valuable old books available to the general public. This one has > > 1156 pages! Could you kindly give a book review of some sort > > for facilitating decision to eventually read it in detail? > > > Browsing the preface, I found the following very well said: > > > Even the criticisms from which I most dissent have been of > > great service to me, by showing in what places the exposition > > most needed to be improved, or the argument strengthened. And > > I should have been well pleased if the book had undergone a > > much greater amount of attack; as in that case I should probably > > have been enabled to improve it still more than I believe I have > > now done. > > > Of course, the author refers herewith to concrete objective criticisms > > and not to spams that came into being only since the ara of electronic > > communications and that serve no purpose but wasting the bandwidth of > > the internet. > > > Thanks, > > > M. K. Shen Rather than a novel, use hypertext linking to explore various areas of interest via the table of contents. This book has so much to do with scientific methods so skirted by so many, sheer propaganda....easily recognized as failing broadsides. One use of terms that as far as I know were first used in cryptography by me were inductive and deductive as descriptive of certain crypto logical algorithms. I went beyond that...but it is reasonable for me to expect that when I use fundamental terms from a significant source that they should be respected as what they are. If you personally don't have your head screwed on well, kindly refer to someone who had a rather good handle on many, many things even hundred of years ago. John Mill is awesome and we need more folks like him. Unruh, you're still a good guy but please lay off the hard stuff before you post. The book, it's all about the academic approach that you normally represent.
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 31 Jan 2010 09:24 unruh: > mok-kong shen wrote: >> unruh wrote: >>> Amazing. Two posts and noone has the least interest in telling us what >>> in the world this document actually is. >>> I detest that kind of post. Be polite enough to tell the reader what you >>> suggesting he look at. >> >> I understood that WTSHAW subsumed the stuff in the title of the thread, >> namely "Method and Logic", so "something" about the book was at least >> said by him. Since however this is too succint in my view, I asked him >> whether he could give us a (more or less long) book review. I have up >> till now only quickly glanced at the preface and couldn't decide, for >> reasons of time resources, to read the proper content of the book >> before knowing something more of what the book actually deals with. >> > > But you felt that it was important to remove my qoute of the title of > the book. (By John Stuart Mill, and it is on logic) No. I usually try in quote to snip those parts of past posts that are not unconditionally required to understand the arguments that are currently in focus and that the readers having followed the past post very probably still have fresh in memory. Other people may have other principles in that practice and certain simply let everything of the past (a number of 'generations' back) there, resulting in a very long total (which I hate). Whether that comes simply from laziness, I can't know. M. K. Shen
From: WTShaw on 1 Feb 2010 05:16
On Jan 31, 8:24 am, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > unruh: > > > > > mok-kong shen wrote: > >> unruh wrote: > >>> Amazing. Two posts and noone has the least interest in telling us what > >>> in the world this document actually is. > >>> I detest that kind of post. Be polite enough to tell the reader what you > >>> suggesting he look at. > > >> I understood that WTSHAW subsumed the stuff in the title of the thread, > >> namely "Method and Logic", so "something" about the book was at least > >> said by him. Since however this is too succint in my view, I asked him > >> whether he could give us a (more or less long) book review. I have up > >> till now only quickly glanced at the preface and couldn't decide, for > >> reasons of time resources, to read the proper content of the book > >> before knowing something more of what the book actually deals with. > > > But you felt that it was important to remove my qoute of the title of > > the book. (By John Stuart Mill, and it is on logic) > > No. I usually try in quote to snip those parts of past posts that are > not unconditionally required to understand the arguments that are > currently in focus and that the readers having followed the past post > very probably still have fresh in memory. Other people may have other > principles in that practice and certain simply let everything of the > past (a number of 'generations' back) there, resulting in a very long > total (which I hate). Whether that comes simply from laziness, I can't > know. > > M. K. Shen I feel we need to all gather at the White House and share some beers but travel is not an option for me these days...carry on. Mills is complicated because complete logic can be so. Distilling something down to a compressed essence is therefore impractical in the case of this book, compressing having its limits without squeezing out some of its vital fluids, a logical simile perchance. Skip around the cogent statements and the accumulated result tends to make sense...very weird for those that believe in a discountenance of the cosmos. Super sayings for 8-balls anyone? |