Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tortoise
It generally boils down to an argument of definitions, with the other guy refusing to acknowledge that the mathematical definitions are more correct than their pedestrian versions that they are attempting to apply to the mathematics.

Please elaborate.

159 posted on 05/29/2002 4:58:36 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]


To: Woahhs
Please elaborate.

Like the people that think "finite but unimaginably large" has the same mathematical consequences as "infinite" (it doesn't, not even close). Or the people that think their pedestrian definitions of "complexity" map to some mathematical concept (it doesn't). Or that a tendency towards entropy is mathematically required (it isn't). Or that all finite sequences can't be expressed in finite time from a random number generator (they can, by the mathematical definition of "random"). Or the fact that most people don't know what "entropy" actually means but use the word liberally. And so on. I've regularly seen people refuse to believe mathematical concepts that have to be true by definition of the concept. Math illiteracy abounds, but it is apparent that most people don't know just how illiterate they actually are.

175 posted on 05/29/2002 6:17:33 PM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson