On 12/11/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But only by abstracting from and generalizing some rules based
counting and then postulating that they apply to arbitrarily large
numbers of things. For example, arithmetic assumes that you can add
1 to 10^1000 and get a different number. But that is purely an
assumption.
I prefer to say that it is a theorem, from the usual assumption like
Kxy = x, Sxyz = xz(yz) +some definitions, or from x+0 = x, etc.
Counting could never confirm it.
You are right, but a physical confirmation is not a proof, it is just
an absence of refutation, inviting us to keep the theory if it is
simple, by Occam.
Right. It is a convenience. Which is not a good reason to take it as
reality.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
