The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 6 Dec 2007 18:38 On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:29:27 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <ElLoboViejo(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: > IOW, when I told you above >you that "Alex" referred to my cat, you couldn't know whether I actually >had a cat named Alex. Or whether I had a fiend named Alex. See? ROTFL. You have a fiend named Alex, do you, Wolf? You also have a fiend named truth and a fiend named definition. Too, too hilarious for predicates, Wolf. ~v~~
From: Shrew_D on 6 Dec 2007 18:46 On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:21:35 -0800 (PST), stephenkwagner(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Dec 6, 11:52 am, Shrew_D <Shre...(a)paleo.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:33:18 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir >> >> <ElLoboVi...(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >> >> However I think my original point regarding Randy's use of "short- >> >> hand" still stands because clearly the "shorthand" in a definition has >> >> to be "shorthand" for something and I thinkLesteris correct on this >> >> issue. >> >> >Since I cannot figure out whatLestermeans by "predicates" etc, I can >> >neither agree nor disagree. >> >> You can't agree that "shorthand" means "shorthand for something"? > >What is your point? > >A definition is shorthand. Shorthand for what? >If I define 'regular graph' to be 'a graph in which all vertices have >the same degree', >then the phrase 'regular graph' is shorthand for the phrase 'a graph >in which all vertices have the same degree'. Then a definition is certainly more than merely shorthand because it includes the phrase for which the shorthand stands. > Anywhere the phrase >'regular graph' appears, you can replace it with the phrase 'a graph >in which all vertices have the same degree'. Except adherents of the shorthand theory for the definition of definition assure us definition is "just shorthand", which is plainly absurd since it is the phrase to which the shorthand corresponds which is the definition and not just the shorthand. >In what sense do you not know "the something" the short hand is for? In the same sense as proponents of the "just shorthand" definition of definition neglect to include what the shorthand is shorthand for in defining definition.
From: Shrew_D on 6 Dec 2007 18:57 On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:46:17 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <ElLoboViejo(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >Shrew_D wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:33:18 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir >> <ElLoboViejo(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >> >>>> However I think my original point regarding Randy's use of "short- >>>> hand" still stands because clearly the "shorthand" in a definition has >>>> to be "shorthand" for something and I think Lester is correct on this >>>> issue. >>> Since I cannot figure out what Lester means by "predicates" etc, I can >>> neither agree nor disagree. >> >> You can't agree that "shorthand" means "shorthand for something"? > > >Well, of course. The term defined is shorthand for the description. I >thunk that was obvious. Obviously it wasn't obvious to Randy when he claimed a definition was just shorthand. > But that doesn't explain what Lester means by >"predicates." I didn't comment on what Lester means by predicates. I commented on what Lester said when Randy neglects to say when he defines definition as just shorthand. > For example, he seems to think "not" is a predicate, hence >his famous "regression to self contradiction", which he then contradicts >to create a tautology that he claims is "universally true." Then perhaps you should take the matter up with Lester. >See? > >I thought not. ;-) My original comment was quite specific. It was only directed at Randy's inability to say what the "just shorthand" in definitions was shorthand for when taxed by Lester.
From: Shrew_D on 6 Dec 2007 19:07 On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:29:27 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <ElLoboViejo(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >Shrew_D wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:33:18 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir >> <ElLoboViejo(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >>[...] >>> In short, the definition allows us to say something about the existence >>> of unicorns, but it does not itself assert the existence of unicorns. >>> Thus it is neither true nor false. >> >> I think you misunderstand your own argument here. Definitions don't >> say anything about the existence of anything defined. But they can say >> something about the non existence of anything defined if the words and >> combinations of words used in definitions are self contradictory. > >Logically "X does not exist" is an existence proposition. Hence what you >say following this claim is irrelevant to my point, which assumes that >the definition of term T says nothing about the existence of the entity >referred to by T. > >See, when you talk about term you are not talking about what they refer >to. Eg, We had a cat named Alex. Now "Alex" is a Greek name. When I say >that, I'm not talking about Alex-the-cat. We also had a friend named >Alex, so we had to be sure we knew which Alex "Alex" referred. Context >was usually enough for that. Terms are not the things refer to. >Definitions restrict what terms refer to, but a definition says nothing >about whether the referent actually exists. IOW, when I told you above >you that "Alex" referred to my cat, you couldn't know whether I actually >had a cat named Alex. Or whether I had a fiend named Alex. See? A few well placed predicates in the definition might clear that up. And as mentioned previously definitions can't say whether a thing exists, but they can say whether a thing can't exist. As for you and your "fiends" I'll leave you to them. We needn't belabor the obvious further.
From: Wolf Kirchmeir on 6 Dec 2007 19:39
Shrew_D wrote: > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:46:17 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir > <ElLoboViejo(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: > >> Shrew_D wrote: >>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:33:18 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir >>> <ElLoboViejo(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> However I think my original point regarding Randy's use of "short- >>>>> hand" still stands because clearly the "shorthand" in a definition has >>>>> to be "shorthand" for something and I think Lester is correct on this >>>>> issue. >>>> Since I cannot figure out what Lester means by "predicates" etc, I can >>>> neither agree nor disagree. >>> You can't agree that "shorthand" means "shorthand for something"? >> >> Well, of course. The term defined is shorthand for the description. I >> thunk that was obvious. > > Obviously it wasn't obvious to Randy when he claimed a definition was > just shorthand. Sure it was. That's why he said it. He just didn't say it very clearly, is all. I mean, I knew what he meant, but that's because he and share at least some notions about 'definition', etc. >> But that doesn't explain what Lester means by >> "predicates." > > I didn't comment on what Lester means by predicates. I commented on > what Lester said when Randy neglects to say when he defines definition > as just shorthand. Yeah, but Lester used 'predicates' in his comment. I'm not surprised that Randy ignored that remark of Lester's - it shows that Lester has a confused notion of 'definition'. Randy knows this, and I know this, because we've both tried to get Lester to explain himself. He never does. >> For example, he seems to think "not" is a predicate, hence >> his famous "regression to self contradiction", which he then contradicts >> to create a tautology that he claims is "universally true." > > Then perhaps you should take the matter up with Lester. Oh, I have. So have many, many others. Didn't help. >> See? >> >> I thought not. ;-) > > My original comment was quite specific. It was only directed at > Randy's inability to say what the "just shorthand" in definitions was > shorthand for when taxed by Lester. Randy wasn't unable to say what you wanted to say, he just didn't. I think hen just decided to give up on Lester. Everybody who engages Lester in a serious conversation sooner or later gives up on him. |