I notice the professor disappeared, a little like Moriarty having perpetrated the crime of his rather poor book. Well done chaps.
On 8 Sep, 19:15, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > >> =============- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
