As I suspected HERE we go again. Poked "branches of mathematics" into google ANd In the first ten of 5.75 million websites, I got about ten different explanations, The first listed 83 odd by some Math Association, with the proviso that the categorisation given was not reliable, complete, arguable, etc and further down Google that it's more or less idle to categorise. Now as words and sets are much alike the same applies to verbs and figures of thought, long ago admitted as not-classifiable. Read it yourself. Quite simply some mathematicians know a lot of these branches and some hardly any. The same further goes for languages entire, cultures and societies. The Official version WAS Branche, oops families of Sanscrit, with a lot that don't fit. NOW replaced by Europe as the UR-Mutter which is questionable from recent Siberian archeology, inclusive of a pre-flood civilisation we may as well call Atlantis, almost, as some commentators avoid such indelicacies. A book on Amerindian languages & cultures came to the conclusion that there's no consistent pattern to it.
Avoiding personalities I've long ago suggested that it's politics and governments which stereotype us in fantasies. It also makes fun of any notion that there is an incommon overall the same scientific method. That makes it fall under games people play. That boils down to whatever people can devise and make rules for. Since it is categorically, absolutely and unconditionally impossible for anybody whatsoever to know all of even current knowledge there is such a thing as specialisation, reality per se or an sich, etc blahh for another hike into endless debates. Srinivasa Ramanujan is famed for intuiting a cartload of math simply on hearing about it, as also happened in the case of some languages. It anybody can find any logical consistency in that lot, I'll charge them with lots of ignorance. At large knowledge and all its branches is about as individualistic as people, snowflakes and anything else you care to propose. I thought of naming criss crossing ideas, tactics, etc and gave it up as impossible. OR as one Nobel PRize winner said: Anything goes. What I find remarkable is how people can indulge in the pueristical pastime of blame games in order to avoid recognising such elementary bits of knowledge as GIVEN above in themselves, because I'm sure I'll have missed a few points or more. What I found amusing is that someone wrote that children learn slowly when they are, actually, the fastest information soaks around. When my son got into the 3 word sentence he used about a 1000 words He'd never used before before lunch. He was rescripting his thinking. At the risk of arousing Einseele's ire once more, I collect tricks, methods, tactics, strategies, theories, assumptions and more of that nonsense and realise he told me it's about alleviating my anxiety, in which EINSEELE collects a first, probably need another couple of centuries to complete or fill up those conceptual boxes, if not forever not catching up with the latest out. It's an infinite universe and people have an infinite potential. What do I mean by infinite? GOOD question. Probably anything that won't tidy up. Remember what the Hookah smoker told Alice, so the above is not even original. There are so many correctors in this group who don't like being outcorrected. Probably a first known recognition of it comes as the Tower of Babel. How many worms can one find under a stone? adrian ornamentalmind wrote: > Thanks George. You have supported what I had guessed. > > On Sep 8, 6:07 am, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --- On Mon, 9/8/08, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps 'facts' = axioms??? >> ============= >> Or, perhaps not. >> >> Again pops up the axiom-drivel which we have clarified >> at least 12 times. >> >> Let's go for the 13'th. >> I give you a sporting 1 to 100 that your post will trigger >> parrots quoting idiotic dictionaries defining Axiom as a >> truth (whatever it may mean) assumed to be self-evident. >> >> Follows the 13th repetition of the clarifying message: >> >> Here is the second most discussed axiom in history >> after the Euclidean of Parallels: >> >> <If t is a disjointed set which does not contain >> the null-set, the Cartesian product Pt is >> different from the null-set.> >> >> Self-evident like goddam hell. >> >> Here come other 3 self-evidences: >> >> 1.Axiom of Euclides: >> <Given a line and a point not on the line, it is >> possible to draw through the point exactly one line >> parallel to the line> >> >> 2.Axiom of Riemann: >> <Given a line and a point not on the line, it is >> impossible to draw through the point any line >> parallel to the line> >> >> 3.Axiom of Lobaczevski: >> <Given a line and a point not on the line, it is >> possible to draw through the point any number >> greater than 1 of lines parallel to the line> >> >> One wonders which of the above self-evidences is >> self-evidenter than the others and how can >> self-evidences contradict one another. >> >> Leaving the drivel we pass to the definition of Axiom >> such as it appears in contemporary scientific Models, >> which are ALL axiomatic: >> >> Since rational science is born, scientific theories >> have the structure of inferencing networks. >> >> Middle nodes or "Theorems" are deduced from upper >> neighbors (premises) and induced from lower nodes >> (conclusions). >> >> Top nodes or "Axioms" having no premises cannot be >> deduced, thus are set arbitrarily by intuition and >> taken as granted as long as they are not inductively >> refuted by their conclusions. >> >> Bottom nodes or "Facts" having no conclusions cannot >> be induced and their logical value (certainty) is >> set empirically. >> >> All rational theories are by definition falsifiable, >> i.e. structured in a way to support bottom-up >> induction from Facts via Theorems to Axioms, which may >> eventually refute Axioms and thus the theory. >> >> Georges. >> ============= > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
