The Definition of Points
in [Math]
|
Prev: Guide to presenting Lemma, Theorems and Definitions
Next: Density of the set of all zeroes of a function with givenproperties
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:23 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Huh!!!! It means "assume"!!! Wow, that's strange.... And demonstrating what I posit doesn't mean just "assume" whereas "positing" is all you do in hopes you can justify what you posit by the plausibility of your arguments instead of demonstrating the truth of what you posit to begin with. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:24 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> You on the other hand seem hell bent on explaining the mechanics of >> working with the results of true and false without explaining the >> mechanics of determining those circumstances. Mathematikers can't >> bring themselves to call the results "true" and "false" with straight >> faces so they just call them "truth values" instead of true and false. > >That's because the premises are...posited and not proven. Well that's certainly true in your case when you don't demonstrate the truth of what you posit. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:26 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Let me ask you something, Tony. When you send off for some truth value >> according to "true(x)" and it returns a 1 or 0 or whatever, how is the >> determination of that "truth value" made? > > From the truth values of the posited assumptions, of course, just like >yours. So you just posit truth values and wing it whereas I'm more inclined to demonstrate the truth of what I posit instead? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:27 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >And if it's just made in >> accordance with the manipulation of other "truth values" how are those >> "truth values" determined? > >That's an inductive matter, based on evidence, and in the case of math, >the acceptability of the conclusions derived from the posited assumptions. In other words you just guess? More or less what I thought. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:29
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Or is it all just a bunch of running "truth >> value" manipulations with no beginning or end? If that's all they are >> then you have no reason to call "truth values" "truth" values and you >> might just call them what they are 1's and 0's because that's all they >> really are. > >You cannot deduce conclusions without inducing assumptions, for the sake >of logical consideration. And "inducing" assumptions by any other name is called guessing. ~v~~ |