|From:||Chris Menzel <chris.menzel@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:50:10 -0500|
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 PM, ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Because it is simply nonsense to talk about numbers being true or false. Truth and falsity are properties of sentences, statements, or propositions, that is, things that are asserted, things that make claims. It makes no more sense to attribute truth to the number 1 as it does to attribute it to an apple.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to be similar to, or what it even means. There are obviously a countable infinity of true statements of the form <algebraic _expression_> = 1 (countable simply because the standard language of real (or rational or natural) number theory is countable). And there are polynomials of the form <algebraic _expression_> = 1 with variables ranging over reals that are made true by uncountably many values — e.g., in the simplest case x/x = 1, which is true when x is any non-zero real. I fail to see how these facts are relevant to any questions about the nature of truth.
No engineer or physicist in his right mind would confuse the number 2 with an "approximation", i.e., with a number other than 2 but "close" to it (relative to some relevant context). All you are pointing out is that engineers and physicists often round empirical measurements or the results of calculations based on empirical input up or down when small differences don't matter in order to simplify the mathematics.
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|