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 Mar 2007 19:12 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:38:37 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >SucMucPaProlij wrote: >> >> I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, it >> is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain >> things to myself. > >If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is bullshit. Philsophy, >by and large, is academic style bullshit. I don't have any problem with that, Bob.Problem is so are SOAP operas. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Mar 2007 19:13 On 17 Mar 2007 08:51:19 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mar 17, 10:22 am, "SucMucPaProlij" <mrjohnpauldike2...(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: >> "Bob Kolker" <nowh...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> >> news:5629arF26ac36U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> > SucMucPaProlij wrote: >> >> >> I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, >> >> it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain >> >> things to myself. >> >> > If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is bullshit. Philsophy, by >> > and large, is academic style bullshit. >> >> Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica >> >> or "academic style bullshit" > >What was called "Natural Philosophy" in Newton's time is what >is now called "physics" and is not what is currently called >"philosophy". Actually it's what is now called empiricism. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Mar 2007 19:17 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:57:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >SucMucPaProlij wrote: > >> >> >> Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica > >Natural Philosophy, the old name for Science. It was not metaphysics. Natural philosophy is the old name for empiricsm not science. >"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc >must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school >metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract >reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any >experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. >Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry >and illusion." Sophistry and illusion are what empirics employ to explain experiments in terms of one another. > An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, one of the >few philosophers that ever made any sense. Unlike yourself, empirics, quantum speculators, and relativists. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Mar 2007 19:18 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:46:56 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij" <mrjohnpauldike2006(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"Bob Kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >news:5629arF26ac36U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> SucMucPaProlij wrote: >>> >>> I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, >>> it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain >>> things to myself. >> >> If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is bullshit. Philsophy, by >> and large, is academic style bullshit. >> > >Reality check: > >If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so? >If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so? >If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say so? > >How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw >this thing I talk about? Well mainly because academics say so. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Mar 2007 19:20
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:01:09 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >SucMucPaProlij wrote: > >> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:5629arF26ac36U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >>>SucMucPaProlij wrote: >>> >>>>I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, >>>>it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain >>>>things to myself. >>> >>>If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is bullshit. Philsophy, by >>>and large, is academic style bullshit. >>> >> >> >> Reality check: >> >> If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so? >> If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so? >> If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say so? >> >> How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw >> this thing I talk about? > >First of all you are talking about abstractions so you cant literally >see them. There wouldn't appear to be much that you can see, Bob. >Second if you have learned some geometry or physics you will know it >when you encounter it (as in thinking about it). So geometry or physics are kinda like art? >> Introduce yourself with Shakespeare! > >Your posts are full of Sound and Fury. A Tale told by an Idiot. Signifying Bob. ~v~~ |