Larry Fontaine wrote:

> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
> For example, numbers can only be defined using numbers. Numbers were
> made up by humans out of thin air. This thought came about from
> something my math teacher was saying about college courses where 1=1
> cannot be assumed. As part of a psychology class required for becoming a
> teacher, there was a test that said, "Prove to me that there's a tree
> outside that window." The only person who got an A wrote, "Prove to me
> there's a window."

	Prove to me this is a test. 

	Rather there comes a point of mental masturbation so to speak. 

	First rigorously define the means of proof as in math and we can
go from there. 1=1 by definition because it is math. It is the
foundation of math that the symbols mean the same at all times. A
is A. 

	Psychologists should never step out of their field. And they are
welcome to their field as it is littered with cowpies. 

> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> perspective, good is evil and evil is good. Kind of like the way maps
> from the Southern hemisphere show North going downward.

	Socially determined conventions and rules. 

> All this could lead to the idea that everything is a paradox. 

	Not if we have the same definition of paradox. 

> Actually, that would then make this theory self-defeating, bringing down
> everything mankind believes with it. Which is maybe why arguments always
> seem to end with irrational statements and nothing gained.

	That does sound like an Ed. major. 

> How does this relate to POVray? 

	I was just about to ask that. 

> Some may say it doesn't, but it goes
> along the same line as the discussion about "Eve's first morn" in p.b.i
> that asks, "What makes something appear real?" That's why I decided to
> post it, anyway.

	The name Eve only has implicite meaning in the Christian and
partically christianized Jewish communities. To Muslims it is
different. To groups outside those three it is like expecting
those within that group to get a meaning from the use of Shiva. 

	Also I might add, unless I should correct the gamma, it is not
morning. 

	I read the title and had one expectation but I saw the Bride of
Frankenstein. 

> Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
> people argue.

	Nothing to argue merely incorrect assertions to correct. 

-- 
<blink>---please--don't---</blink>

http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/

Oh my God! They've rendered Kenny!

Post a reply to this message

Matt Giwer wrote in message <37D20FB5.377766EF@giwersworld.org>...
> First rigorously define the means of proof as in math and we can
>go from there. 1=1 by definition because it is math. It is the
>foundation of math that the symbols mean the same at all times. A
>is A.


This is one of the basic postulates of all mathematics, just like the
parallel postulate is one of the basic postulates of Euclidean geometry.
Assume the postulate is untrue, and you get a different mathematics.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner wrote:

> Matt Giwer wrote in message <37D20FB5.377766EF@giwersworld.org>...
> > First rigorously define the means of proof as in math and we can
> >go from there. 1=1 by definition because it is math. It is the
> >foundation of math that the symbols mean the same at all times. A
> >is A.

> This is one of the basic postulates of all mathematics, just like the
> parallel postulate is one of the basic postulates of Euclidean geometry.
> Assume the postulate is untrue, and you get a different mathematics.

	If you assume 1 is not equal to 1 you negate mathmatics. It is
on the order of negating lines rather than assuming they are or
not parallel.

Post a reply to this message