Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 04/25/2010 01:50 PM:
I was talking about plain old vanilla philosophical induction: The
fallacy is that without deduction, induction can't get you anywhere,
and that people who think they are getting somewhere through induction
alone are so caught up in an
Russ Abbott wrote circa 04/25/2010 02:45 PM:
Does knowledge generated by any so-called pure science promote species
survival? Only by chance, it seems. Besides why should improved species
survival be related to the possibility of interesting theorems? The
importance to us of a domain is
On Apr 26, 2010, at 7:48 AM, glen e. p. ropella
g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote:
I think it is. (But as the thread develops, I'm less and less confident
that it'll come to anything... Aaa! I can't believe I might agree
with Doug on something. ;-
The OP's Too many interesting
Please. It would certainly be nice to have a copy that did not give me
a workout every time I picked it up.
Joseph Spinden
On 4/25/10 9:07 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
BTW: there is a digital pre-print version that has some of the
publisher's marginal comments. Let me know if you'd like to
Apologies to the group for the spam. I thought I was just replying to Owen,
JS
On 4/26/10 10:06 AM, joseph spinden wrote:
Please. It would certainly be nice to have a copy that did not give
me a workout every time I picked it up.
Joseph Spinden
On 4/25/10 9:07 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Owen Densmore wrote circa 10-04-26 08:59 AM:
The OP's Too many interesting comments to follow up sorta sounds like
I've lost interest!
Heh, yeah; but words have consequences! ;-) No (good?) deed goes
unpunished.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
I don't follow Glen's 'You can't generalize across all of math/logic to talk
about why theorems? any more than you can generalize over all of natural
language and ask why sentences? '
The original intent was to ask why there always seems to be hidden structure
-- which is revealed by theorems.
Actually I can follow Glen's line of reasoning (I think).
For example, the way Maths works is that a theorem is proved by trying
to prove a conjecture. When that approach fails you end up proving a
special case of the conjecture - which in turn gets elevated to its own
status as a theorem.
Sarbajit,
My take is that contemporary abstract mathematicians have no interest
(as mathematicians) in discerning truth. The truth about existence
is the business of scientists, philosophers and theologians.
Ever since Hilbert's program at the beginning of the twentieth century
to
sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-26 10:59 AM:
Actually I can follow Glen's line of reasoning (I think).
For example, the way Maths works is that a theorem is proved by
trying to prove a conjecture. When that approach fails you end up
proving a special case of the conjecture - which in turn
*SCREEENNNCKK*
(The sound of Hell freezing over.)
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:48 AM, glen e. p. ropella
g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote:
Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 04/25/2010 01:50 PM:
Aaa! I can't believe I might agree
with Doug on something. ;-)
doug,
Is THAT what it sounds like?
A bit louder than the sound of one hand clapping.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University
On 26 Apr 2010 at 23:29, sarbajit roy wrote:
Actually I can follow Glen's line of reasoning (I think).
For example, the way Maths works is that a theorem is proved by trying
to prove a conjecture. When that approach fails you end up proving a
special case of the conjecture - which in turn
All,
I am working my way through this book, and, rather than write one huge email
that nobody reads, I thought I would write some short ones that somebody might
read.
It's a splendid little book, very cleanly and economically written. S. is not
beset with jargonophilia. The basic idea of
Sorry, everybody: somehow I pressed the send button, when I meant to save it
for further thought. The last sentence is just nuts.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
Nick -
I read it through before seeing your retraction. As you may recognize
by now, your fallacy is probably not a consequence of your being an
English (Psychology?) Major but actually just not reading the statement
of the problem carefully enough. The 10^24 (molecules) vs the 10^21
glasses
16 matches
Mail list logo
