Re: OT (sets and stuff)
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:26:10 GMT
Message-ID: <6KMzh.5325$R71.79733_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>On Feb 6, 8:34 am, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Formal systems don't have elephants in them.
>>>
>>>I didn't get you irony. You didn't get my metaphor.
>>
>>I understood you just fine. Your "metaphor" indicated
>>you don't understand the difference between the natural
>>world and the abstract world. Many other of your
>>posts have indicated the same thing.
>>
>>
>>>One can empirically verify that the hierarchal model's method becomes
>>>unsystematic when representing things with multiple parents.
>>
>>That's not empiricism.
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:26:10 GMT
Message-ID: <6KMzh.5325$R71.79733_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Walt wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1170782610.288107.62570_at_a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >
>>On Feb 6, 8:34 am, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Formal systems don't have elephants in them.
>>>
>>>I didn't get you irony. You didn't get my metaphor.
>>
>>I understood you just fine. Your "metaphor" indicated
>>you don't understand the difference between the natural
>>world and the abstract world. Many other of your
>>posts have indicated the same thing.
>>
>>
>>>One can empirically verify that the hierarchal model's method becomes
>>>unsystematic when representing things with multiple parents.
>>
>>That's not empiricism.
> > I disagree. One *could* verify such an assertion empirically. One could > also verify such an assertion abstractly, without recourse to empiricism. > One might call this a "proof in theory". OK, my disgreement might just be a > quibble.
What is the measure of 'systematic' ? How do we instrument our hierarchy to measure it? Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 23:26:10 CET