[Krimel] There is a difference between legal proof and mathematical proof. Mathematical language involves unambiguous symbols. Meaning and methods are sharp and clear open to manipulate but not interpretations. Mathematical truths are analytical and rule based. Like its cousin, logic, mathematics is rational and precise.
Other symbolic systems from the written word to music to art, carry varying degrees of ambiguity but more emotional depth. That depth offers clarity at the expense of precision. But this is why I argue that not all thought is linguistic or symbolic. Ron: Hello Krimel, it is not often you and I disagree, I think linguistic statements of truth are the same as mathematical proof with the exception That mathematical proof utilizes axioms whereas legal proof utilizes Law. Logic is all about certainty in expression of meaning. Russell took half of Principia Mathematica to prove the axiom of addition. Mathmatics may be more accurate and precise but it's methods are the same. The establishment of a true statement through objective argument. Whether that argument is expressed through language or symbol. Math is an objective argument Much like a legal objective argument, only in legal argument sophistry Is permitted. But have you ever read a legal document? It is as objectively Specific as language can get with the whole idea of establishing certainty. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
