Re: Objects and Relations

On Jan 31, 7:27 pm, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's a set of integers: F = {1, 2}
>
> > Here's a binary relation on (integers x integers) that
> > specifies an order on F: O1 = { (1,2) }
>
> In the above explanation, I see no logical/systematic basis from
> unordered to ordered. The only basis I could determine is in effect
> 'because the statement/syntax says it does'.

That's all there is in life: stuff that is there because the statement said so. We cannot consult the Oracle at Delphi to discover what the True Underlying Order of something is. We decide on an order we wish to discuss, and then we write it down in a statement, an there's the order: right there in the statement.

This "logical/systematic" thing you've got going is a delusion, I'm sorry to say. It does not exist. It is a ghost, a slight disorder of the stomach, an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.

And don't forget: sets don't actually exist in the Real World(tm). They are stuff we have made up. We stick with them because they are useful. If you want to understand *why* they are useful, you have to buy into it for long enough to figure out what you can do with them. Questioning is good, but if you start questioning the professor before he can finish his first sentence of the course you'll never hear if what he has to say has any value. You'll have drowned his educated voice out with you own uneducated one.

Listen. Learn. Master. *Then* see if you can do better. I have seen the type that wants to question everything back to
first principles before they have even a tenuous grip on the basics, in a variety of different domains. They never become more than dilletants, preferring a bad approach they came up with on their own to a good approach someone else taught them.

Marshall Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 06:02:28 CET