|
|
On 31 Aug 2006 11:51:44 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 17:24:44 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Who cares? We have it from Virgil that axioms and definitions in
>> modern math aren't true.
>
>You're circling closer to what Virgil (and everyone familiar
>with axiomatic mathematics) is saying, but not there yet.
Oh I think I'm circling closer to nothing of the kind, Randy, except
where modern mathematics is concerned.
>A definition is a shorthand. It is a name given to a concept,
>generally because the name is shorter than the description
>of the concept.
Hooey. A definition is a string of interrelated predicates. That and
nothing more. You can make up all the abbreviated nonsense you want
and it still doesn't explain what definitions actually are that you
and other neomathematkers want to pretend they're not.
>"Definitions aren't true" sounds like they have a truth value
>of "false".
More drivvel. I don't deal in "truth values". I deal in truth. And the
"truth" between and among interrelated predicates is either "true"
"false" or "ambiguous". So if interrelated predicates are not "true"
they are either "false" or "ambiguous" and not appropriate venues for
science.
> In fact they don't have a truth value. They're just
>symbolic substitutions.
Symbolic substitutions? You mean kinda like in programming languages?
What you really mean is that you want to play "REALITY" on a Nintendo
GameCube instead of dealing with reality in scientific terms.
>Axioms do have a truth value. They are true by assumption,
>if consistent. I would say they are true by assumption even
>if not consistent but in that case there may be some room
>for different conventions.
Yeah and my conventions says that neomathematikers don't have a clue.
~v~~
|
|